JonBenet's Law

BBB167893

Former Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
13,259
Reaction score
109
Hi, gang.

Decided I'd take a break from the "Ask Super" thread. But I got to thinking. There are a lot of laws passed in the wake of child murders. Jessica's law, Megan's law, etc.

Here's my problem. I think there should be a new law stemming from this case. But for the life of me, I can't decide on one! Anyone have any ideas? Please don't keep them to yourself!
 
SuperDave said:
Hi, gang.

Decided I'd take a break from the "Ask Super" thread. But I got to thinking. There are a lot of laws passed in the wake of child murders. Jessica's law, Megan's law, etc.

Here's my problem. I think there should be a new law stemming from this case. But for the life of me, I can't decide on one! Anyone have any ideas? Please don't keep them to yourself!


SuperDave,

It should be against the law for government, including prosecutors and the courts, to condone and participate in the coverup of the killing of a child without somehow allowing the truth to be known to the public that the crime has been solved.

I'm convinced the killing of JonBenet has been solved for years, but the Colorado Children's Code and other child protection laws have prevented the truth from being known.

BlueCrab
 
BlueCrab said:
SuperDave,

It should be against the law for government, including prosecutors and the courts, to condone and participate in the coverup of the killing of a child without somehow allowing the truth to be known to the public that the crime has been solved.

I'm convinced the killing of JonBenet has been solved for years, but the Colorado Children's Code and other child protection laws have prevented the truth from being known.

BlueCrab
Ahhh, a conspiracy theory. BlueCrab. This case is a result of an inept Police Department and of a sleezy District Attorney, who was intimidated by and friends with the Ramsey's lawyers. It is what it is.
 
BlueCrab said:
SuperDave,

It should be against the law for government, including prosecutors and the courts, to condone and participate in the coverup of the killing of a child without somehow allowing the truth to be known to the public that the crime has been solved.

I'm convinced the killing of JonBenet has been solved for years, but the Colorado Children's Code and other child protection laws have prevented the truth from being known.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab, if the case has been solved for years as Burke was found to be the perp and has been protected under colarado law, why would Lacy and co pursue JMK?
 
Charlie said:
BlueCrab, if the case has been solved for years as Burke was found to be the perp and has been protected under colarado law, why would Lacy and co pursue JMK?
Berke is not the perp. No parent is going to trust a murdering ten-year old child to keep his mouth shut and let him leave the home with friends an hour after they supposedly found the body.
 
Charlie said:
BlueCrab, if the case has been solved for years as Burke was found to be the perp and has been protected under colarado law, why would Lacy and co pursue JMK?


Charlie,

The Ramseys and their conspiratorial local Colorado government allies throw everyone they can under the bus. This helps to remove the focus from where it belongs -- on the Ramseys.

BlueCrab
 
BlueCrab said:
Charlie,

The Ramseys and their conspiratorial local Colorado government allies throw everyone they can under the bus. This helps to remove the focus from where it belongs -- on the Ramseys.

BlueCrab
What about the fact that Berke was allowed to leave the house?
 
I think JonBenet's law should be to do with handling crime scenes and suspects - e.g. that the parents whould be separated and interviewed immediately - no ifs or buts and no refusing to be intereviewed.
 
Possibly it could have something to do with REQUIRING the FBI or other law enforcement agencies to get involved in the case of a murder in a jurisdiction that rarely sees them.

Did that make sense? I'm migraining, so I'm a little slow.
 
Jayelles said:
I think JonBenet's law should be to do with handling crime scenes and suspects - e.g. that the parents whould be separated and interviewed immediately - no ifs or buts and no refusing to be intereviewed.
AGREED! No matter how much money, political influence, etc....they might have. If Jonbenet had been from a working class family in "any suburb" of "anytown USA" you can bet this case would have been done and overwith a long time ago.
 
BlueCrab said:
Solace,

Sorry, but I don't know what your point is.

Bluecrab
Well, if it is someone in the house and you believe it is, someone by the name of Ramsey, and not the parents, that would leave Berke. John Andrew's whereabouts were confirmed.

My point is if the parents are trying to protect a killer who is a child, why would they let Berke out of their sight. That is very trusting of them to believe a child would be quiet.
 
Solace said:
Well, if it is someone in the house and you believe it is, someone by the name of Ramsey, and not the parents, that would leave Berke. John Andrew's whereabouts were confirmed.

My point is if the parents are trying to protect a killer who is a child, why would they let Berke out of their sight. That is very trusting of them to believe a child would be quiet.

Solace,

If you are up to your *advertiser censored* in alligators (cops asking questions), would you stay where you are or would you go to a safer place?

BlueCrab
 
BlueCrab said:
Solace,

If you are up to your *advertiser censored* in alligators (cops asking questions), would you stay where you are or would you go to a safer place?

BlueCrab
I would think I would keep him close by and say he is too traumatized to speak with anyone and also I would have all my friends around so they would look at the police like they were the Gastapo if they dared to question him. Although, I have to tell you, the kid sounds a little bit strange. He certainly did not ask many questions. Don't you find that strange.:cool:
 
Great thread idea, SuperDave. I'd love to see something come of it.

Solace said:
Berke is not the perp. No parent is going to trust a murdering ten-year old child to keep his mouth shut and let him leave the home with friends an hour after they supposedly found the body.
I really have to agree. There's no way they'd have let him go anywhere if he knew something and could possibly be convinced (or be willing without convincing) to talk.

Jayelles said:
I think JonBenet's law should be to do with handling crime scenes and suspects - e.g. that the parents whould be separated and interviewed immediately - no ifs or buts and no refusing to be intereviewed.
How extremely appropriate for this case, and certainly a necessary measure. Wealth and social status should never entitle anyone to preferential treatment, especially in a child's murder.

hipmamajen said:
Possibly it could have something to do with REQUIRING the FBI or other law enforcement agencies to get involved in the case of a murder in a jurisdiction that rarely sees them.
This alone would have led this case in a different direction. Hope you're feeling better.

And I have to agree with BlueCrab - the public deserves to know the truth about murders and whether they have been solved or not. I also think the public deserves to know who a person is if that person has committed a brutal murder like this, even if that person is a child.
 
Jayelles said:
I think JonBenet's law should be to do with handling crime scenes and suspects - e.g. that the parents whould be separated and interviewed immediately - no ifs or buts and no refusing to be intereviewed.

Jayelles,

I understand and agree with what you're saying. But,to be honest,if they wanted to interview me,they wouldn't have gotten any pertinent information,because I would have been a raving basket case ... or at best catatonic.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
This alone would have led this case in a different direction. Hope you're feeling better.
I am, thank you :)
 
SuperDave said:
Hi, gang.

Decided I'd take a break from the "Ask Super" thread. But I got to thinking. There are a lot of laws passed in the wake of child murders. Jessica's law, Megan's law, etc.

Here's my problem. I think there should be a new law stemming from this case. But for the life of me, I can't decide on one! Anyone have any ideas? Please don't keep them to yourself!

It was the commitment of these murder victims families that got laws passed. They did not want any other child and parent to suffer the way they did. No way, no how did the Ramseys ever stand up for JonBenet. They just moved on with their lives.

I just get so tired of the "innocent Ramseys" baloney. Anyone who hires a top notch expensive criminal defense attorney the day after their daughter is found dead is guilty of that childs death.
 
I think there should be a limit on how many years a case like this goes unsolved. At that time it should be turned over to the Attorney General who would appoint a special investigator.
 
Jayelles said:
I think JonBenet's law should be to do with handling crime scenes and suspects - e.g. that the parents whould be separated and interviewed immediately - no ifs or buts and no refusing to be intereviewed.
..and I want to add,the interviews should be VIDEOTAPED from start to finish.No exceptions!As well as any follow-up interveiws.
We have a fairly new law here in NC that requires it,due to a previous case where the suspect was thought by many to have given a coerced confession.Taping may greatly reduce those claims.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
107
Guests online
1,346
Total visitors
1,453

Forum statistics

Threads
591,783
Messages
17,958,794
Members
228,606
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top