Could 9-yr old Burke have been...

[icedtea4me]

apprehended, prosecuted, convicted, and punished for the commission of the crime of murder in the first degree?

 

[icedtea4me]

Gee... No one wants to touch this?

 

[David Rogers]

apprehended, prosecuted, convicted, and punished for the commission of the crime of murder in the first degree?

He was too young. They can’t do anything in Colorado. They could not even prosecute the parents if it implicated him as the killer. That is why the whole case stopped.

 

[icedtea4me]

He was too young. They can’t do anything in Colorado. They could not even prosecute the parents if it implicated him as the killer. That is why the whole case stopped.

Count VII stated that John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, and apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment for such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/true-bills-for-john-and-patsy.pdf


This could not have applied to Burke Ramsey because, as you stated, he was too young.

This would also be the same for Patsy Ramsey with her individual indictment. She and John were indicted as individuals because there is no indictment which reads John Bennett Ramsey and Patricia Ann Ramsey did unlawfully, etc.

The part in bold could only apply to someone who was old enough to be apprehended, prosecuted, convicted, and punished for committing the crime of first degree murder.

Now, let's say that the grand jury did vote (9+) to indict John for first degree murder. If that happened, then his Count VII charge would be dropped, but it would remain for Patsy. If the grand jury voted (9+) to indict Patsy for first degree murder, her Count VII charge would be dropped, but it would remain for John. Finally, if the grand jury had indicted John and Patsy, each of their Count VII charges would be dropped.

 

[David Rogers]

Count VII stated that John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, and apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment for such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/true-bills-for-john-and-patsy.pdf


This could not have applied to Burke Ramsey because, as you stated, he was too young.

This would also be the same for Patsy Ramsey with her individual indictment. She and John were indicted as individuals because there is no indictment which reads John Bennett Ramsey and Patricia Ann Ramsey did unlawfully, etc.

The part in bold could only apply to someone who was old enough to be apprehended, prosecuted, convicted, and punished for committing the crime of first degree murder.

Now, let's say that the grand jury did vote (9+) to indict John for first degree murder. If that happened, then his Count VII charge would be dropped, but it would remain for Patsy. If the grand jury voted (9+) to indict Patsy for first degree murder, her Count VII charge would be dropped, but it would remain for John. Finally, if the grand jury had indicted John and Patsy, each of their Count VII charges would be dropped.

The Grand Jury can do whatever they want but it came down to the DA who could not violate the Children’s criminal code. They can’t try the parents if it implicates a minor. It goes along with the juror who says they know who the killer was but recognize the predicament the DA was in.

 

[icedtea4me]

The Grand Jury can do whatever they want but it came down to the DA who could not violate the Children’s criminal code. They can’t try the parents if it implicates a minor. It goes along with the juror who says they know who the killer was but recognize the predicament the DA was in.

BDIs tend to think that John and Patsy were indicted together as a team. No, they were not. John was indicted as an individual. Patsy was indicted as an individual. The predicament the DA could have been in wasn't due to Burke. It was more than likely over not having a source for any unidentified dna, which is something which with the defense would have a field day.

 

[OldBackstop]

I think the indictments were just designed to be a pressure device on the Ramseys. If the prosecutors actually believed Burke was the murderer, he wouldn't have just been sent back into the world of school and peers.

 

[David Rogers]

I think the indictments were just designed to be a pressure device on the Ramseys. If the prosecutors actually believed Burke was the murderer, he wouldn't have just been sent back into the world of school and peers.

He had to be sent back. It is against the law to implicate a minor and by doing that they would have implicated him. They had no choice or they would have violated Colorado law. Same reason the prosecutors could not do anything that would implicate Burke including trying the parents.

 

[OldBackstop]

He had to be sent back. It is against the law to implicate a minor and by doing that they would have implicated him. They had no choice or they would have violated Colorado law. Same reason the prosecutors could not do anything that would implicate Burke including trying the parents.

So 9 year old axe murders have pretty much a free go of it in Colorado, and the police can't say a word?

You are misinterpreting the law.

 

[David Rogers]

So 9 year old axe murders have pretty much a free go of it in Colorado, and the police can't say a word?

You are misinterpreting the law.

It may be different now but at the time that was the law. It is all a cover up.

 

[David Rogers]

So 9 year old axe murders have pretty much a free go of it in Colorado, and the police can't say a word?

You are misinterpreting the law.

Ten Years Old Is The Minimum Age Before A Juvenile Can Be Charged In Colorado's Juvenile Court System. Colorado's juvenile court system only has jurisdiction over children 10 years of age and older. This is set out in the COLORADO JUVENILE CODE – CRS Title 19 (2015). Specifically, Section 19-2-104(1)(a), (7), C.R.S.
the court doesn’t even have jurisdiction over minors under 10. That is why they can not do anything. That means they can’t do anything concerning a minor. Can’t charge, can’t implicate even if others go free. They are bound by law to protect the minors.

 

[OldBackstop]

First off, he was a month under 10. They can appeal for someone to be moved up, and....was there ever a better case? A month short of his birthday and garroting a 6 year old?

More to the point here, the law you cite specifies that the child can be charged as a minor later if offenses arise from the original offense.....like lying to the cops.. Were they sure of Burke's guilt, why would they not take the same tactic as with the parents and charge him with obstruction, assessory, etc., since the interview he did with the psychologist denying any knowledge of the murder happened well after his 10th birthday..

Secondly from a Colorado lawyers website: ""Juveniles are defined as persons between the age of 10 and 18. If a child under the age of 10 commits a crime, he or she may be referred to the Department of Human Services for further intervention.""

If they knew Burke did it, how on God's green earth could they decide to not do that, and let him return to free social interaction, even though they are sure he is Bang Bang Maxwell Silver Hammer.

I mean, seriously. If they were sure, they would arrest Burke as a minor, month short of 10 be damned. That would be appealed on the technicality and, eventually, it may be decided he had to go the Department of Human Resources route. I mean, these prosecutors were out of control....

....but, come on.....no way they kick him loose and then, having a soft spot for young murderers, undertake a two decade long giant cover scheme to mask his guilt by a feverish battle of PDI vs. IDI involving dozens of professionals quitting their jobs, suing each other, etc. Oh culminating in fabricating a DNA "pardons" because.....damn, he was the cutest little 9 and 11/12ths yo sexual sicko murderer we have ever seen. Shhhh....don't tell anybody....

Is that what you think happened?

 

[UKGuy]

First off, he was a month under 10. They can appeal for someone to be moved up, and....was there ever a better case? A month short of his birthday and garroting a 6 year old?

More to the point here, the law you cite specifies that the child can be charged as a minor later if offenses arise from the original offense.....like lying to the cops.. Were they sure of Burke's guilt, why would they not take the same tactic as with the parents and charge him with obstruction, assessory, etc., since the interview he did with the psychologist denying any knowledge of the murder happened well after his 10th birthday..

Secondly from a Colorado lawyers website: ""Juveniles are defined as persons between the age of 10 and 18. If a child under the age of 10 commits a crime, he or she may be referred to the Department of Human Services for further intervention.""

If they knew Burke did it, how on God's green earth could they decide to not do that, and let him return to free social interaction, even though they are sure he is Bang Bang Maxwell Silver Hammer.

I mean, seriously. If they were sure, they would arrest Burke as a minor, month short of 10 be damned. That would be appealed on the technicality and, eventually, it may be decided he had to go the Department of Human Resources route. I mean, these prosecutors were out of control....

....but, come on.....no way they kick him loose and then, having a soft spot for young murderers, undertake a two decade long giant cover scheme to mask his guilt by a feverish battle of PDI vs. IDI involving dozens of professionals quitting their jobs, suing each other, etc. Oh culminating in fabricating a DNA "pardons" because.....damn, he was the cutest little 9 and 11/12ths yo sexual sicko murderer we have ever seen. Shhhh....don't tell anybody....

Is that what you think happened?

OldBackstop,
Well the prosecutor Alex Hunter never even filed the Grand Jury True Bills with the court.

That is a major get Out Of Jail Card for the parents who were named in those True Bills.

So whichever RDI theory you go for it looks like there was definitely an agenda to supress the case.

Some folks blame the parents, others think the case is BDI?

With minors of Burke's age they usually mandate therapy and extended supervision. Maybe this happened, we just do not know.

I would bet a $100 all day long on the case being BDI. I've yet to see a coherent, consistent JDI or PDI, both have large holes in them, and are usually based on subjective opinion rather than actual forensic evidence.

I reckon the case is what it looks like: Brother on Sister assault, leaving the Sister in a coma. Parents arrive on the scene and want to save the Brother as they reckon their daughter has gone. So they stage accordingly.

We just had a similar case in the UK, except it was Brother on Brother.

.

 

[Chelly]

OldBackstop,
Well the prosecutor Alex Hunter never even filed the Grand Jury True Bills with the court.

That is a major get Out Of Jail Card for the parents who were named in those True Bills.

So whichever RDI theory you go for it looks like there was definitely an agenda to supress the case.

Some folks blame the parents, others think the case is BDI?

With minors of Burke's age they usually mandate therapy and extended supervision. Maybe this happened, we just do not know.

I would bet a $100 all day long on the case being BDI. I've yet to see a coherent, consistent JDI or PDI, both have large holes in them, and are usually based on subjective opinion rather than actual forensic evidence.

I reckon the case is what it looks like: Brother on Sister assault, leaving the Sister in a coma. Parents arrive on the scene and want to save the Brother as they reckon their daughter has gone. So they stage accordingly.

We just had a similar case in the UK, except it was Brother on Brother.

.

Hello again @UKGuy. Nice to see you persisting with JBR's case after all these years. My who-did-it beliefs have bounced around from BDI to PDI and have settled back on BDI. Am I recalling correctly that you originally supported the JDI theory in these threads? In 1996 I was working in a newsroom in Massachusetts where the reporters and editors were absolutely convinced it was all Patsy. We enjoyed many weighty discussions on who was really responsible for JBR's death. I always held that I can't go to the grave before guilty party is convicted. Still hanging on, waiting. BTW, do you recall @otg 's experiments with watermelons? There still must be photos around somewhere.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I've always found it interesting how some people think it's impossible that an almost 10 year old could torture and murder a smaller child.

Not common, for sure, but there have been examples throughout history. Speaking of the UK, Thompson and Venables were only 10 when they kidnapped, tortured and murdered a three year old they didn't even know. In Burke's case, I don't think he liked his sister very much...

 

[proust20]

Money buys you expensive attorneys with political influence. Why else would one pay them so much? The GJ indictments were returned despite the Rs denying access to info like their phone records. Try that tactic with a public defender. The indictments also refute LS's IDI theory, which he presented to the GJ.

 

[OldBackstop]

OldBackstop,
I reckon the case is what it looks like: Brother on Sister assault, leaving the Sister in a coma. Parents arrive on the scene and want to save the Brother as they reckon their daughter has gone. So they stage accordingly.

"Stage accordingly" as in stick a broken piece of paintstick up her adored daughter's whoo-ha, and garrote her to death as she claws at the cord?

Come on.....lol.....you can do better than that.

 

[UKGuy]

Hello again @UKGuy. Nice to see you persisting with JBR's case after all these years. My who-did-it beliefs have bounced around from BDI to PDI and have settled back on BDI. Am I recalling correctly that you originally supported the JDI theory in these threads? In 1996 I was working in a newsroom in Massachusetts where the reporters and editors were absolutely convinced it was all Patsy. We enjoyed many weighty discussions on who was really responsible for JBR's death. I always held that I can't go to the grave before guilty party is convicted. Still hanging on, waiting. BTW, do you recall @otg 's experiments with watermelons? There still must be photos around somewhere.

Chelly,
Hey there, nice of you to reply. Yes I was mainly JDI originally then like many others I slowly moved over to BDI as the evidence mounted.

I'm not a diehard BDI as there is no smoking gun, the evidence is mostly circumstantial, as the case could turn out to be JDI or PDI?

Not only is there otg's pictures, there is also the CBS documentary footage of some kid whacking a skull stand in, I forget what it was. There are clips on youtube.

You will find out who did it eventually, someone will release a crucial nugget of information that nails the case down. Possibly no court case, but you will know!

I know for fact the BPD investigators, retired or not, are waiting for JR to pass on, then the legal issues are largely resolved. James Kolar might edit, and do a reprint of his book, i.e. a BDI without all the guesswork.

.

 

[icedtea4me]

I've always found it interesting how some people think it's impossible that an almost 10 year old could torture and murder a smaller child.<snip>

I find it disturbing that there are those who would prefer her 9-yr old brother to have committed the murder as opposed to an adult like themselves.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I find it disturbing that there are those who would prefer her 9-yr old brother to have committed the murder as opposed to an adult like themselves.

Prefer? What does preference have to do with anything? What happened happened. This isn't a movie where anyone gets to write the script.