Will JBR ever have justice?

[tipper]

What about the Ramseys? John stated in one of his depos that he would continue to search for the killer (my paraphrase here).

This, in stark contrast to the Moxleys, who persevered for years.

A cousin of mine was brutally murdered. Her sister fought for justice by getting involved in the investigation, court proceedings, etc.. She wrote a book, got on the talk show circuit, just to keep the case in the forefront. When the murderer was up for parole, and when his atty tried to get a mistrial, she and other family were right there...very involved. To this day she remains involved in whatever way necessary to see that justice is maintained. I realize that this is a different case than JBR's murder, but I do wonder why the Rs don't push this case to the front and use some of their money to find the perp rather than try to make themselves "appear" innocent to the general public.

I think they have spent huge amounts of money on investigators. The Moxleys are frequently mentioned as a contrast to the Ramseys but there are never any details about what they did that was different. I've read Dunne's and Fuhrman's books on her case and my impression is although they hired investigators in the early years, ultimately they became more or less resigned to the case being forgotten and unsolved. Particularly after Mr. Moxley died. Mrs. Moxley had long since moved to another state and even though the case was out of the public eye she wasn't even sure she wanted Dunne to write a book about it.

I'm not knocking Dorthy Moxley. From what I've seen this is a fairly typical pattern. The family has to move on with their lives. The evidence continues to not lead anywhere and news outlets aren't interested in covering old news.

 

[Nehemiah]

I agree that families must move on. It's just that it's difficult to not see the Ramseys pushing forward. If not J/P, then at least the siblings, or someone! Of course, I don't know what the Rs may be doing this very minute; they could be doing something behind the scenes of which I am not aware.The Moxleys used a lot of their time, energy, and money to assist in the re-investigation that they themselves created.

There are many similarities to the Ramsey case, in my opinion:

1. The Skakel attorneys hired their own investigators to possibly cloud the issues. (Ramseys hired their own attorneys immediately)

2. The Skakel boys were represented by separate counsel in the event that both were accused of the murder. (The Rs hired separate counsel, also.)

3. The facts of the case were so confusing that the DA was frustrated and unwilling to indict or convene a grand jury. (Could apply to the JBR case, too)

4. It appeared that the Skakel money, power, and politics intimidated the police and DA. The investigation came to a standstill. (Appears that the R's political connections, power, and money did the same.)

5. As long as the Skakels refused to talk with the police, the authorities had an excuse for why they didn't prosecute. (Could be said for the JBR case.)

6. As long as the police were looking at the Skakels as "suspects", the attorneys wouldn't let them talk to police. (Definitely the same situation as the R's.)

7. The Skakels were publicly blamed for lack of cooperation in the investigation. (Same as Ramseys.)

8. Everyone refused to take responsibility for the bungled investigation. The police blamed the DA for not prosecuting; the DA blamed the police; and, together they blamed the suspects for not cooperating. (Definitely same as the JBR case.)

9. The police refused outside help. (Yes, same with BPD/DA in Boulder.)

10. The police were inexperienced in homicide investigation. (Same with BPD.)

11. The whole case was referred to as a "cover up of a screw up". (Definitely could apply to the JBR case.)

12. Money, power, & connections obstructed the investigation, intimidated the police and confused the prosecutors. (Yes, same with JBR case...Haddon et al...)

13. The police and DA in their own ways wanted to solve the case--they just didn't know how and didn't want to admit it.

14. Sensitive case info was released to the press. (Doesn't even require a comment as to the similarity to the JBR case)

15.Residents of the community wanted the investigation to go away. (Could say the same thing about Boulder.)

There was one major difference that I noted. Martha's dad worked very hard to keep the investigation going. After his death, her mother and, esp. her brother used the media to generate public attention and apply pressure on the authorities to continue the investigation.

 

[Seeker]

Linda7NJ,

In Colorado no person under the age of 10 can be charged with a crime. The identities of these persons, even if they commit a crime, are automatically sealed by the court. Children age 10 or older (through age 17) can also have their records sealed. Here's the wording that allows a lie to be lawfully told in order to protect the identity of a child who has committed a crime:

COLORADO CHILDREN'S CODE -- "Persons 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

That is completely untrue. You can contact
Boulder County Justice Center
1777 6th Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Hours: 8:00am - 5:00pm (Monday - Friday)
Phone: (303) 441-3690 FAX: (303) 441-4713

Ask for the juvenile division and they will set you straight on whether or not a child under 10 can be taken into custody. More than likely, according to the guy I spoke to, the child would be sent to a mental institution. The child would be dealt with not just left to go about their normal life and business.

Burke has never been charged with a crime, but if there had been any reason to suspect him of being involved he could have been taken into custody.

There is no law exempting any child under the age of 10 from being removed from the home and taken into custody.

 

[tipper]

There are very few cases that are similar to either Martha Moxley or JonBenet. The ones that are usually held up e.g. Klaas, van Dam, Walsh started out as a missing child. A situation where the parents are focussed on the hope of recovering their child. I do see similarities in how both the Moxleys and Ramseys behaved and reacted. But, unlike the Ramseys, the Moxleys did not having the might of the local police arrayed against them and running an anti-Moxley campaign from day one. But just in general terms of their reactions and behaviors here is my list. I tried not to include things like both towns just wanting the whole problem to disappear since that doesn't really tell us much about the behavior of the families.


1. The Skakels hired an attorney, Littleton hired an attorney, the Moxleys also used attorneys for some communiations with the police.

2. The Ramseys and Littleton (who was an innocent, but convenient, suspect) both refused to allow themselves to be railroaded by the local police.

3. When they became suspects the Skakels withdrew the assorted permissions they had signed. The Ramseys didn’t.

4. The Moxleys hired their own investigators. The Ramseys hired their own investigators

5. The Moxleys are said to have spent about a million dollars on the case. The Ramseys have spent more. The Moxleys would probably have spent more had they been the suspects.

6. Dorthy Moxley had a “inconclusive” polygraph. Patsy Ramsey had an “inconclusive” polygraph.

7. After 6 months the Moxley case came to a standstill and eventually the Moxleys only heard from the police once or twice a year. According to posters here and elsewhere innocent parents park themselves at the police station and never give up. The Moxleys became resigned that the case might not be solved. “"We never gave up hope, but the thought (that the murder would never be solved) occurred - especially after Dave died."or another way: “The police would come, we would see them maybe once or twice a year. Every now and then, a little something would happen. But it became fewer and fewer things. By the time David died, we didn't think anything would ever happen." I think the Ramseys have reached the same conclusion.

8. Dorothy Moxley has memory lapses after the murder. The Ramseys had memory lapses after the murder.

9. The Moxleys moved away from where their daughter is buried. The Ramseys moved away from where their daughter is buried.

10. “"I was the kind of wife who felt I had to take care of my husband," Moxley said. "And I was the kind of mother who felt I had to be there for John. I always felt I just couldn't give up." Similar comments about Patsy Ramsey have been interpreted as an obsessive and overly involved wife and mother.

11. It wasn’t until 1991 and the William Kennedy Smith trial that the Moxley case began to pique the interest of the press. Until then the case got almost no coverage.

12. When Dunne approached Dorthy Moxley in 1992/3 about writing A Season in Purgatory, he decribed her as “camera-shy.”

13. The Ramseys said they weren’t angry. A long time friend of Dorthy Moxley says of her: “But she's never harbored anger or gone through all the 'why me?' It's not what she does." [Neither mother has reacted the way Laci Peterson's mother did in talking about the violence she wanted to do to her daughter's killer.]

14. Patsy Ramsey spoke of the tears she has cried. Dorthy Moxley said “I cried for years.”

15. The Moxleys never set up a website. The Ramseys never set up a website.

16. The Moxleys offer $100,00 reward in 1996. The Ramseys offer $100,000 in 1997.

17. John Ramsey didn’t talk with his wife about the loss of Beth. (I don’t know whether they talk about JonBenet.) The male Moxleys didn’t talk with Dorthy about the loss of Martha.

18. Dorthy talks with her friends about memories of Martha. Patsy takes comfort from JonBenet's pictures and remembering her.

19. Dorthy Moxley didn’t fight to run out to where her daughter was (5 hours) in their yard. The Ramseys didn’t fight to stay in their house after Mason told them they had to leave.

20. Dorthy says she was a zombie after the murder. “In her grief she lost contact with the world.” Patsy was a basket-case for months and still bed-ridden in July.

 

[tipper]

[...]
There was one major difference that I noted. Martha's dad worked very hard to keep the investigation going. After his death, her mother and, esp. her brother used the media to generate public attention and apply pressure on the authorities to continue the investigation.

Forgot this...(emphasis mine)
http://marthamoxley.com/
[…]
For years nothing was mentioned about the case publicly. Residents of Greenwich didn't speak of the terrible crime which had gone unsolved. Meanwhile, in 1983, the Greenwich Time/Stamford Advocate hired a freelance writer named Len Levitt to write an article on the case. The article appeared to be "so controversial" at the time that the publishers shelved it until 1991 when a rumor started floating around Greenwich that William Kennedy Smith -- then facing a rape charge on which he was acquitted in Palm Beach, Florida -- knew something about the murder. This rumor proved to be untrue, but sparked curiosity into Martha's unsolved murder. The article stirred new public interest.

The case regained national attention in 1993 when "A Season in Purgatory," Dominick Dunne's best-selling novel based on the murder, was published. Dunne, who later wrote extensively about the O.J. Simpson trial, encouraged Mark Fuhrman to investigate the case.
[…]

Much as the Moxleys may have wanted it; there was almost no public attention from shortly after the murder (1975) to 1991.

 

[BlueCrab]

That is completely untrue.

Seeker,

You attacked my post by saying it's completely untrue, and then you posted a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with what I said. In fact, I agree with much of what you posted. I posted the wording of the law in regard to The Colorado Children's Code, so if you don't agree with it you'll have to take it up with the Colorado general assembly, not me. Under "18-1-801. Insufficient Age: No child under ten years old shall be found guilty of any offense".

I have never said a child under 10 cannot be taken into custody. But perhaps case law can help explain it to you better:

"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, 830 P.2d 1092, (Volo App. 1991)."

BlueCrab

 

[tipper]

That is completely untrue. You can contact
Boulder County Justice Center
1777 6th Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Hours: 8:00am - 5:00pm (Monday - Friday)
Phone: (303) 441-3690 FAX: (303) 441-4713

Ask for the juvenile division and they will set you straight on whether or not a child under 10 can be taken into custody. More than likely, according to the guy I spoke to, the child would be sent to a mental institution. The child would be dealt with not just left to go about their normal life and business.

Burke has never been charged with a crime, but if there had been any reason to suspect him of being involved he could have been taken into custody.

There is no law exempting any child under the age of 10 from being removed from the home and taken into custody.

Interesting. It sounds like you talked with them. I did find and post this a few days ago.

http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0

403.02

Children Under Ten Years of Age
(1)
Children under 10 years of age cannot be held for a crime.

It goes on to say the case will be marked "Exceptionally Cleared." But I have found nothing to say LE then continues to investigate as though they don't know who committed the crime.

I found this site covering the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.):

http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0

The Children's Code is Title 19. The Criminal Code is Title 18.

BlueCrab,
Could you please provide links when you quote from something? Thanks.

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,
Could you please provide links when you quote from something? Thanks.

tipper,

I will. But sometimes I have only notes from years back and failed to note the source.

However it's almost impossible to research the Colorado Codes. That LexisNexis program the state has running the system causes my computer to lock up tight every time, and I have to shut down the computer to free it up. It's been doing this for years.

 

[tipper]

tipper,

I will. But sometimes I have only notes from years back and failed to note the source.

However it's almost impossible to research the Colorado Codes. That LexisNexis program the state has running the system causes my computer to lock up tight every time, and I have to shut down the computer to free it up. It's been doing this for years.

I agree. It seized up my computer a couple times too. But it did help in giving me specific strings that I can then google. So its not completely useless.

 

[Seeker]

What has been posted here is the current Children's code that can be found online. These have been revised (at least 2 times) since 1996. They are not true in the respect that they were not in force, or enforceable back in 1996.


http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/reform/ch3_b.html
The enacted measure slightly amended most of the LOC recommendations set forth in H.R. 96*1005. The enacted provisions include:

Facilitating speedy case processing through expanded deadlines and provisions for the court to grant continuances for good cause.
Creating a new Division of Youth Corrections in the Department of Human Services.
Providing for juvenile intake teams to assess the needs of alleged youth offenders as they enter the system, replacing the JAIP proposal. The law eliminated the proposed required assessment tool, allowing local authorities to adopt assessment instruments appropriate to local needs.
Redefining "aggravated juvenile offenders" to include juveniles ages 10 to 12 charged with a crime of violence. This class of young offenders had the right to a six-person jury trial.
Clarifying and changing LOC recommendations for sentencing youth to boot camp programs.
Requiring parental involvement in juvenile proceedings and hearings before the juvenile court, with exceptions for good cause.
Adding crimes for which a district attorney may elect to file adult criminal charges and allowing for transfer to criminal court of juveniles ages 12 and 13 charged with class 1 or 2 felonies, rather than juveniles ages 12 to 14 as proposed by the LOC.300

297. Id. According to officials, all the bills but the child welfare initiative passed. It is expected to be reintroduced in the 1997 legislative session.

I am looking for the code that was in force back in 1996 as to whether a child under 10 could be taken into custody due to a an extremely violent crime.

I did call and speak to someone and what he told me is that any child who was involved in a violent crime against a sibling, like in this case, would NOT have been left in his parents care, but would have been taken into custody and then sent to a mental health facility for evaluation and treatment.

If an under 10 year old (BTW Burke was close enough to actually being 10 that he still may have been considered 10 and be able to be prosecuted for this crime in juvenile court if there was any hint that he was directly involved. The other boy BC keeps saying was there was over 10 at the time if I'm not mistaken, so why would he have been exempt from prosecution as well?) was exempt from prosecution back then he, or she, would still have been removed from the home and the case would not be "under investigation" for over 9 years.

I did find this very interesting though, it states that Colorado wanted to make the age 10 to try juveniles in court as adults. I still don't find ANYTHING that states that a child (in 1996) could not be taken into custody or tried in juvenile court when he, or she was just a few days from turning 10 years old...

Children tried in adult courts are tried in public and deprived of their right to privacy. If convicted, they have criminal records that cannot be expunged and make securing work far more difficult on release. Moreover, they are subjected to higher penalties than would be the case in juvenile courts.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/usacol/

I'll keep looking, but I know for sure that Burke would not have been left in his parents care if he was ever even suspected of being involved in JB's death. Accident or not.

 

[BlueCrab]

I did find this very interesting though, it states that Colorado wanted to make the age 10 to try juveniles in court as adults. I still don't find ANYTHING that states that a child (in 1996) could not be taken into custody or tried in juvenile court when he, or she was just a few days from turning 10 years old...

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/usacol/

I'll keep looking, but I know for sure that Burke would not have been left in his parents care if he was ever even suspected of being involved in JB's death. Accident or not.

Seeker,

Colorado law in 1996 was specific in regard to the minimum age a child could be charged with a crime -- it was 10. Since BR was about four weeks away from turning 10, he could not be charged under any circumstances. However, if he did it, that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. The case would fall under the jurisdiction of the district attorney, Alex Hunter, to dispose of it in any way he felt appropriate. This could be almost anything, but it would not involve juvenile or adult criminal charges. Historically, it usually would involve psychiatric evaluation and treatment.

Children of any age who are a present danger to themselves or others can be removed from the house.

BTW, do you know the DOB of DS? I've never been able to come up with it.

BlueCrab

 

[Seeker]

I don't have the exact date, but I seem to remember reading a long time ago that he was older than Burke by a few months.

 

[BlueCrab]

I don't have the exact date, but I seem to remember reading a long time ago that he was older than Burke by a few months.

Seeker,

As you know, most of my BDI theories involve an accomplice -- a fifth person in the house on the night of the killing. An awful lot of evidence points in that direction (missing crimescene items, etc). The age of BR allows him to get off scott free no matter what, so why would the Ramseys be so deeply involved in a coverup? Therefore, the age of that fifth person, if there was one, could have a bearing on why the Ramseys have been carrying out the coverup even though BR is not legally culpable.

More specifically, as you are aware, because of the suspicious behaviors of the Stines I suspect DS and/or NI could be the fifth person.

BlueCrab

 

[Seeker]

Seeker,

As you know, most of my BDI theories involve an accomplice -- a fifth person in the house on the night of the killing.

Yes I know, I've read most all of what you've posted. However, that lack of footprints that keeps you from believing an intruder could have been involved also would seem to diprove that your 5th person was there.

An awful lot of evidence points in that direction (missing crimescene items, etc).

Not in my opinion. What missing crinescene items? The black non-sticky duct tape? So much like gaffer's tape that is used at the pagents so the kids know where their "mark" is? MJenn found this when viewing pictures/video's of JBR's pagents. Why couldn't it be a piece taken from a pagent floor? That would account for there being no "roll" to be found and for the lack of stickiness of the tape as well. The cord could have likewise been a leftover piece from some school project that was left in the basement by BR or one of his friends. It could also have been from something he got during his cub/boyscouts meetings.

The age of BR allows him to get off scott free no matter what, so why would the Ramseys be so deeply involved in a coverup?

I doubt they knew anything about the child age law. Rich people also seem to be very status conscious...they could have done it to keep the stigma off of Burke IF he was involved.

Therefore, the age of that fifth person, if there was one, could have a bearing on why the Ramseys have been carrying out the coverup even though BR is not legally culpable.

I don't believe that for one minute. If there was someone else for the Ramsey's to throw under that bus they would have to save their reputations IMO.

More specifically, as you are aware, because of the suspicious behaviors of the Stines I suspect DS and/or NI could be the fifth person.

BlueCrab

I really don't see the Ramsey's covering up for NI at all. Why would they?
Besides you've already IMO disproven there was anyone other than a Ramsey in the home that night by arguing that nobody left the house due to no footprints in the snow.

Maybe we're overlooking something very simple that came from a totally different direction....

Who would the Ramsey's actually cover for? Not a friend, so IMO it would have to be a family member. Someone that caused JR to lawyer up only his side of the family....

 

[ellen13]

I've read this both ways-one source says there was snow on the ground. The other says that there wouldn't be enough on the ground to leave footprints.

One other thing, what if one or two of Jar's friends did this (they would have known that the alarm system wasn't used, could have had a key,and had knowledge of the layout of the basement
and..............
PR and JR blamed it on BR and they don't even know the truth-that
would explain why they covered for BR and wouldn't think they'd need to cover for anyone else.

 

[jehauck]

If Burke were somehow involved, either accidently or on purpose, fatally injuring JB, I wonder how he could have kept quiet about it all those years. I can't imagine a 9-yr-old being able to keep a secret like that, especially when questioned by the police.

 

[BlueCrab]

However, that lack of footprints that keeps you from believing an intruder could have been involved also would seem to diprove that your 5th person was there.
QUOTE]


Seeker,

THE SNOWFALL THEORY: The snowfall that night was only a dusting. IOW, it probably lasted no longer than 10 or 15 minutes. If there had been a fifth person in the house at the invitation of a Ramsey his departure would have been the first thing on the coverup agenda. When he left the house the snow probably hadn't yet begun to fall. But later on that morning when the staging had been completed and the body was ready to be moved out of the house, fresh fallen snow blocked the perp. His footprints would have led from the house and back again. The temperature was 10 degrees. The killer was trapped in his own house with a body and a ransom note that now didn't make any sense.

BlueCrab

 

[Seeker]

Seeker,

THE SNOWFALL THEORY: The snowfall that night was only a dusting. IOW, it probably lasted no longer than 10 or 15 minutes. If there had been a fifth person in the house at the invitation of a Ramsey his departure would have been the first thing on the coverup agenda. When he left the house the snow probably hadn't yet begun to fall. But later on that morning when the staging had been completed and the body was ready to be moved out of the house, fresh fallen snow blocked the perp. His footprints would have led from the house and back again. The temperature was 10 degrees. The killer was trapped in his own house with a body and a ransom note that now didn't make any sense.

BlueCrab

Ummm, Blue? I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly or not, but you seem to be indicating that the killer was still in the house. How can that be if this 5th person left? Wouldn't it be "killer's", not just "killer"? And why not spirit the body away at the same time the mythical 5th person was? Why bother with all the rest of the sstaging? It wouldn't be necessary, just the note, not all the rest.

I would think that the first thing on the cover up agenda would be to get them both out of the house and then call the police to report a break in...and a missing child.

 

[BlueCrab]

Ummm, Blue? I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly or not, but you seem to be indicating that the killer was still in the house. How can that be if this 5th person left? Wouldn't it be "killer's", not just "killer"? And why not spirit the body away at the same time the mythical 5th person was? Why bother with all the rest of the sstaging? It wouldn't be necessary, just the note, not all the rest.

I would think that the first thing on the cover up agenda would be to get them both out of the house and then call the police to report a break in...and a missing child.

Seeker,

The snow theory is based on there being two perps -- one a Ramsey and the other one invited into the house as a guest by a Ramsey.

For whatever reason, the guest left soon after the murder -- before the staging was complete and before the snowfall.

The other perp was a Ramsey, so he couldn't leave. When it came time to take JonBenet outside after she had been wiped down and clean panties put on her to try and hide the sexual assault, it had snowed. A Ramsey was trapped in his own house with a body and a ransom note.

BlueCrab

 

[sandraladeda]

Seeker,

The snow theory is based on there being two perps -- one a Ramsey and the other one invited into the house as a guest by a Ramsey.

For whatever reason, the guest left soon after the murder -- before the staging was complete and before the snowfall.

The other perp was a Ramsey, so he couldn't leave. When it came time to take JonBenet outside after she had been wiped down and clean panties put on her to try and hide the sexual assault, it had snowed. A Ramsey was trapped in his own house with a body and a ransom note.

BlueCrab

But again, why not take the body out with this "5th person" ? Then there would be no need for the staging.....