Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[lawstudent]

Here's a tidbit you may not be aware of. The Ramsey's sued the national enquirer over the Burke did it reporting....it settled, sealed. Guess who gave the National Enquirer an exclusive interview as a condition of that settlement? drum roll please.... THE Ramsey's! And ya want to know what little morsel they let loose? They confessed Burke was awake before the 911 call was placed. After YEARS of lies stating he slept through everything!!!!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting - was not aware.

My guess regarding that would be that the settlement was the National Enquirer would not make such allegations about Burke again, if they gave them an exclusive. Did NE drop coverage of Burke did it after that?

 

[bettybaby00]

Interesting and makes sense. I was young at the time and only remember it being splashed across the Enquirer, which I never gave much credit to. The settlements could either indicate that yes, they had good sources they did not want to reveal, or they didn't have good sources, and wanted to avoid defamation proceedings. I just thought that in the Internet age, it would come out. A lot of old cases and confidential stuff have come out about a lot of celebrities over the last decade or so. Not as easy to go after all the people making claims anymore. But everyone could have been scared off by previous lawsuits.

Ding, ding, ding, ding!

Here's a great example of L Wood at work after the release of the true bill(s) as reported by CNN...

On Friday, an attorney for John Ramsey and his family urged the district attorney to publicly open "the entire grand jury record and not just 4 pages from an 18-month investigation that produced volumes of testimony and exhibits."

The released indictments "are nonsensical," said attorney L. Lin Wood. "They reveal nothing about the evidence reviewed by the grand jury and are clearly the result of a confused and compromised process. The Ramsey Family and the public are entitled to the benefit of the full and complete record, not just a historical footnote. Fairness dictates that result."

Wood, in a statement, said the grand jury didn't have what was later to be "the conclusive 2008 DNA testing that led to the unequivocal, public exoneration of the Ramsey Family by the Boulder District Attorney."​

If they are really so concerned about "everything being released," where's the lawsuits fighting for it? How come we know the housekeeper was fighting to have her testimony released? It's all smoke and mirrors for the Rs. I mean, really....

"the conclusive DNA...the unequivocal, public exoneration​

Conclusive DNA....Unequivocal? Seriously
*eyeroll*

But he goes on tv and pounds the table and says this stuff, and the media goes, "oh ok!"

I did want to point out that the media can say what it wants even if the grand jury refused to indict. The only lawsuit that could arise is if they said the grand jury indicted or something like that, but if they had sources that indicated it actually did indict, which apparently they didn't, if the Ramseys tried a defamation suit, they'd lose. You can't defame someone by telling the truth. If they simply reported facts from the GJ proceedings, that's not grounds for a lawsuit, although it breaks Colorado law so they'd need to protect their sources. It would be the Colorado law keeping the media quiet - to keep sources from being prosecuted. Not the idea that the jury didn't indict.

Yes the media doesn't necessarily have to cower before the Rs, and their highly qualified and successful litigation team, but for the most part they have. Why? b/c many of these so called journalists are lazy, and swallow what they're force fed willingly. When the news of the GJ findings broke, nearly every segment, on every channel covering the story that the GJ did actually vote to indict they ended with.........


BUT, as we all know the DA "exonerated the R family in 2008." And then we'd get a pregnant pause, cue commercial break, leaving the viewer with the impression that the DA exoneration invalidated the GJs findings.

I remember watching the news shows all day that Saturday, and one....count 'em only one talking head lawyer jumped in and talked about how legally irrelevant and highly unprecedented Lacy's move was. Finishing with the truth that the much touted exoneration was worthless in the eyes of the law.

ETA: I was researching the statute and found the case with the housekeeper challenging the secrecy laws. It wasn't making sense to me how they could make you be quiet forever - now I understand it's until the case resolves, but because murder has no SOL and it hasn't gone anywhere they are still bound. That applies to witnesses, though. What rule applies to grand jury members? Does it have the same time limitations? I don't think you can claim anything stays secret now and forever - there's always some possible endpoint.

What's most interesting about the White's letter to the people of CO. Published right before they were subpoenaed is the discussion regarding the recently passed statute (16-5-205.5, C.R.S.). If we are to believe FW, it is his contention that there was a deliberate stalling to convene the GJ in order to take advantage of the statute.

In his letter White states the statue's purpose is, "grand jury reports may be released to the public if no indictment results from its probe," effectively allowing the DA to "prove" to the public that there is no case.

But what happens when the GJ signs a true bill(s), but the DA refuses to sign it?

I guess it means the DA can tell the public, there is no case, yet he's not "obligated" to provide the GJ report to prove it.

 

[lawstudent]

The released indictments "are nonsensical," said attorney L. Lin Wood. "They reveal nothing about the evidence reviewed by the grand jury and are clearly the result of a confused and compromised process. The Ramsey Family and the public are entitled to the benefit of the full and complete record, not just a historical footnote. Fairness dictates that result."



If they are really so concerned about "everything being released," where's the lawsuits fighting for it? How come we know the housekeeper was fighting to have her testimony released? It's all smoke and mirrors for the Rs. I mean, really....

. . .



In his letter White states the statue's purpose is, "grand jury reports may be released to the public if no indictment results from its probe," effectively allowing the DA to "prove" to the public that there is no case.

But what happens when the GJ signs a true bill(s), but the DA refuses to sign it?

I guess it means the DA can tell the public, there is no case, yet he's not "obligated" to provide the GJ report to prove it.

There's a few issues going on at once.

Indictments can be sealed until the state's interest gets outweighed by the public's interest, which usually happens when the person is charged.

In this case, they weren't charged and the investigation never really ended, so there was no easy point at which they could be released. So the media went after them and argued at this point, the public interest in this case is so strong and the state isn't really even investigating, so it should be released. And they won and got the indictments.

I think the same rule applies to all the testimony and other docs - so yes, the Ramseys should have moved for the release, or the press, or someone else. But it's difficult to demonstrate the investigation has ended to the point where the sealing is no longer necessary, given it was never solved. Not sure why the media was unable to get everything else - I guess because the indictments don't have any real worth at this point to the investigation, but the testimony possibly could?

The maid's situation was different. She made a constitutional argument claiming the whole statute was invalid because it violated her First Amendment rights. The court rejected that argument because they said 1) she could talk about anything she knew before the proceedings and 2) she could move to have the testimony released once the state's interest was outweighed. The second seems tough to accomplish. But she could have written a book based on what she knew about the Ramseys and just not talked about her testimony or their questions to her.

 

[DeeDee249]

Living in Colorado, one month shy of his tenth birthday, Burke could never (and will never) be charged with anything that he might have done that night (regardless of the evidence). However, as I understand it, if now (as an adult) he were to talk to LE and give them false information, he could be charged with something for that. Good reason to say, "No thanks," should they come asking if he'd like to talk with them.

And that is exactly what he DID say (through his lawyer LW) when LE asked to speak to him just a few years ago.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Interesting - was not aware.



My guess regarding that would be that the settlement was the National Enquirer would not make such allegations about Burke again, if they gave them an exclusive. Did NE drop coverage of Burke did it after that?

Yep!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bettybaby00]

There's a few issues going on at once.

Indictments can be sealed until the state's interest gets outweighed by the public's interest, which usually happens when the person is charged.

In this case, they weren't charged and the investigation never really ended, so there was no easy point at which they could be released. So the media went after them and argued at this point, the public interest in this case is so strong and the state isn't really even investigating, so it should be released. And they won and got the indictments.

I think the same rule applies to all the testimony and other docs - so yes, the Ramseys should have moved for the release, or the press, or someone else. But it's difficult to demonstrate the investigation has ended to the point where the sealing is no longer necessary, given it was never solved. Not sure why the media was unable to get everything else - I guess because the indictments don't have any real worth at this point to the investigation, but the testimony possibly could?

The maid's situation was different. She made a constitutional argument claiming the whole statute was invalid because it violated her First Amendment rights. The court rejected that argument because they said 1) she could talk about anything she knew before the proceedings and 2) she could move to have the testimony released once the state's interest was outweighed. The second seems tough to accomplish. But she could have written a book based on what she knew about the Ramseys and just not talked about her testimony or their questions to her.

BBM

I see your point regarding the housekeeper's lawsuit. Yet, I find it disingenuous to say the least that the Rs, and their lawyers, want everything released b/c it would be beneficial to them.

How they figure that is beyond me, since the GJ did in fact conclude there should be charges filed. If they had made this argument before we knew about the GJs findings, then it would make sense to me. But not after the fact. Wood tries to completely negate and dismiss their findings with spin, and then tries to validate the spin by saying everything should be released, when he knows it can't and won't be released.

It's as convoluted as the Rs instance that BR doesn't know anything b/c he was asleep.

He reported that his 9-year old son, Burke, was still asleep in his upstairs bedroom. He had not been awakened by either of the parents to determine if he knew anything about JonBenét’s disappearance.

[...]

Ramsey reports that he alone awakened Burke and told him to get dressed and that his sister was missing. French made an attempt at an interview before Burke left the home, but was told that the boy had been asleep throughout the entire event and had no information to offer officers.

498 & 529 foreign faction

Their instance that "he was asleep throughout the entire event" makes no sense.

We didn't ask him anything, b/c he was asleep. We know he doesn't know anything b/c he was asleep, but we didn't ask if he knew anything b/c he was asleep! :scared:

If they never woke him up and asked him if he knew anything, how do they know he was truly asleep the whole time, when they never asked him anything???? And yet he wasn't asleep the whole time.

It's the same thing with Wood asserting the GJs findings are meaningless. A big 'old circle jerk where they claim the findings are meaningless, and full disclosure would prove it, but we can't have full disclosure to prove that the findings are meaningless!

:scared:

It makes my head hurt :lol:

 

[questfortrue]

There's a few issues going on at once.

Indictments can be sealed until the state's interest gets outweighed by the public's interest, which usually happens when the person is charged.

In this case, they weren't charged and the investigation never really ended, so there was no easy point at which they could be released. So the media went after them and argued at this point, the public interest in this case is so strong and the state isn't really even investigating, so it should be released. And they won and got the indictments.

I think the same rule applies to all the testimony and other docs - so yes, the Ramseys should have moved for the release, or the press, or someone else. But it's difficult to demonstrate the investigation has ended to the point where the sealing is no longer necessary, given it was never solved. Not sure why the media was unable to get everything else - I guess because the indictments don't have any real worth at this point to the investigation, but the testimony possibly could?

~RSBM~

Slight correction regarding the actions around the release of the indictment of the GJ. This indictment was an “official action” on the part of the Grand Jury and as such was subject to disclosure to the general public.

As far as the R team suing for release of the whole proceedings, that could not happen without changing the Colorado laws pertaining to GJ secrecy. As recently as 2003 a federal court validated the Colorado secrecy maintained by the GJ. Although the First Amendment allows grand jury witnesses — if one can reach them — to talk to the media about their testimony, recent court decisions restrict the scope of what they can disclose under state law.

Imo, the request from JR to release all the GJ proceeding was “bluster/bluff”. He’d gone on record in January 2013 that this indictment was just “more drama”. He kinda was trying to back up his “more drama” comment. But note, his criminal attorney (not his civil attorney LW) wrote a letter and fired it off to try to halt the release of the indictment. His criminal attorney did not do that of his own accord, but with the direction of his client, JR.

There's an editorial by Charlie Brennan, the investigative reporter who pushed for the release - http://www.dailycamera.com/news/bou...nnan-why-i-fought-ramsey-indictments-release#

Snipped from this article: "There is a reason that criminal actions are officially recorded as "The People" versus a named defendant. The courts belong to the people, and transparency of the courts is a central pillar on which our system is based. There was no transparency -- until today -- surrounding the Ramsey grand jury's final days and ultimate decision.

"Judge Robert Lowenbach, in considering the suit brought by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and myself, noted, 'There is no precedent in Colorado regarding the question of whether an indictment signed by the foreman of the Grand Jury but unsigned by the District Attorney is subject to disclosure to the general public.'

"But Judge Lowenbach apparently didn't deem this a very close call. It took him only eight working days, from hearing oral arguments, to issue a ruling that the grand jury's actions constituted an "official action," therefore permitting the indictment's release to -- and inspection by -- the public."

 

[lawstudent]

Isn't there still a way to get proceedings released? I thought that if the investigation ended, they could get them. Does the statute really seal the record forever?

Agree the Ramsey's attorney is just bluffing.

And the indictment was sealed, so even though it was an official action, I thought it was supposed to remain sealed until the end of the investigation?

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

I did want to point out that the media can say what it wants even if the grand jury refused to indict. The only lawsuit that could arise is if they said the grand jury indicted or something like that, but if they had sources that indicated it actually did indict, which apparently they didn't, if the Ramseys tried a defamation suit, they'd lose. You can't defame someone by telling the truth. If they simply reported facts from the GJ proceedings, that's not grounds for a lawsuit, although it breaks Colorado law so they'd need to protect their sources. It would be the Colorado law keeping the media quiet - to keep sources from being prosecuted. Not the idea that the jury didn't indict.

Lawstudent, I believe everyone knows that if someone in the media reports something defamatory, the person (or group) defamed can sue. I think this is the only situation in US courts where essentially the burden of proof is then on the defendant to prove the story true (or that it was believed to be true and reported without malice). The calculated risk the plaintiff is taking (if he knows the story is true) is that what was only an unsubstantiated report before the suit, if proven in court, then becomes an accepted fact. But if in order to prove its side, the defendant has to reveal confidential sources, they will usually seek to settle out of court. Reporters will even go to jail to defend their right to not reveal confidential sources, but that is in cases other than libel/defamation where a judge charges contempt of court for their refusal to disclose sources.

Is Colorado law still the same regarding GJ proceedings? I want to look into the now and forever language - could be legal language, could be odd. The prosecutors certainly have behaved quite oddly in this case. They may try really hard to convict someone, but rarely to exonerate them, even if the suspects are well-connected. I guess it was more common in the pre-tabloid era, with celebrities/politicians, but it is odd in the 90s.

Lacy never used the word "exonerate". That is a word that the press applied to what she did. From http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exoneration/:

Exoneration refers to a court order that discharges a person from liability. In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent.
​

No one can be "exonerated" of something they were never charged with or convicted of. Lacy's action would better be described as a Grant of Absolution, considering her stated reasons for the declaration. I don't know of anyone with any legal acumen who thinks her doing it was a good idea (as long as no one had been charged). Imagine how difficult her actions would make it for prosecutors if new evidence was found that led to a Ramsey arrest?

ETA: I was researching the statute and found the case with the housekeeper challenging the secrecy laws. It wasn't making sense to me how they could make you be quiet forever - now I understand it's until the case resolves, but because murder has no SOL and it hasn't gone anywhere they are still bound. That applies to witnesses, though. What rule applies to grand jury members? Does it have the same time limitations? I don't think you can claim anything stays secret now and forever - there's always some possible endpoint.

The secrecy of GJ proceedings (I think) is mostly so witnesses feel secure that their testimony will not be disclosed. I don't remember right now where in the statutes the secrecy issue is addressed. I'll try to look for it later, or you can search for it here:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

What's most interesting about the White's letter to the people of CO. Published right before they were subpoenaed is the discussion regarding the recently passed statute (16-5-205.5, C.R.S.). If we are to believe FW, it is his contention that there was a deliberate stalling to convene the GJ in order to take advantage of the statute.

In his letter White states the statue's purpose is, "grand jury reports may be released to the public if no indictment results from its probe," effectively allowing the DA to "prove" to the public that there is no case.

But what happens when the GJ signs a true bill(s), but the DA refuses to sign it?

I guess it means the DA can tell the public, there is no case, yet he's not "obligated" to provide the GJ report to prove it.

You know, what makes Hunter's actions even more questionable is this. If a GJ issues no indictment, they can issue a report instead that explains why they were unable to return a true bill. But the GJ is made up not of lawyers, but laypeople. As a juror, are they told of that power they have? But it wouldn't matter here, because they DID issue an indictment, and therefore could not write a report of their actions. I remember when the GJ was at work, there was a lot of speculation and talk about the possibility of a "runaway" GJ (http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq8.htm). I think that's exactly what Hunter felt had happened. He only convened the GJ to keep the governor off his back and to prevent the appointment of a special prosecutor. He never wanted to have to take this case to court (IMO) -- especially knowing he'd have to face the Ramsey attorneys. But Hunter was smarter than most people thought. By threatening anyone into silence, he was able to imply that no true bill had been returned by the cleverly-crafted wording in his statement. But the GJ was unable to contradict that with a report... because they DID issue an indictment.

 

[otg]

You know, what makes Hunter's actions even more questionable is this. If a GJ issues no indictment, they can issue a report instead that explains why they were unable to return a true bill. But the GJ is made up not of lawyers, but laypeople. As a juror, are they told of that power they have? But it wouldn't matter here, because they DID issue an indictment, and therefore could not write a report of their actions. I remember when the GJ was at work, there was a lot of speculation and talk about the possibility of a "runaway" GJ (http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq8.htm). I think that's exactly what Hunter felt had happened. He only convened the GJ to keep the governor off his back and to prevent the appointment of a special prosecutor. He never wanted to have to take this case to court (IMO) -- especially knowing he'd have to face the Ramsey attorneys. But Hunter was smarter than most people thought. By threatening anyone into silence, he was able to imply that no true bill had been returned by the cleverly-crafted wording in his statement. But the GJ was unable to contradict that with a report... because they DID issue an indictment.

The CRS as relates to GJ reports is 16-5-205.5. (Grand jury reports). From there (bbm):

(1) In any case in which a grand jury does not return an indictment, the grand jury may prepare or ask to be prepared a report of its findings if the grand jury determines that preparation and release of a report would be in the public interest, as described in subsection (5) of this section. The determination to prepare and release a report pursuant to this section must be made by an affirmative vote of at least the number of jurors that would have been required to return an indictment. The report shall be accompanied by certification that the grand jury has determined that release of the report is in the public interest, as described in subsection (5) of this section.
​

Further [Subsection (5) referred above] (bbm):

(5) Release of a grand jury report pursuant to this section may be deemed to be in the public interest only if the report addresses one or more of the following:

(a) Allegations of the misuse or misapplication of public funds;

(b) Allegations of abuse of authority by a public servant, as defined in section 18-1-901 (3) (o), C.R.S., or a peace officer, as described in section 16-2.5-101;

(c) Allegations of misfeasance or malfeasance with regard to a governmental function, as defined in section 18-1-901 (3) (j), C.R.S.;

(d) Allegations of commission of a class 1, class 2, or class 3 felony.
​

 

[otg]

(rs&bbm)

But what is so glaringly noticeable to me is....

[...]did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously, permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death[...]​

KNOWINGLY is the word that I can't get past. That's not an indication of an "accident." And the language is repeated in the 2nd true bill as well. Every time I read it, it's a clear indicator for BDI, for me.

The language indicates it was an ongoing problem, and they knew about it. And it would appear that the "child abuse" relates to "prior sexual contact." There was no discounting or diminishing of that evidence by the GJ. It's not like JRB continually showed signs of physical abuse, such as bruises or broken bones, or multiple ER visits, all of which would likely been documented, and or found out about in some way prior to the convening of the GJ.

Back to your question about the word "knowingly", it is defined in the appropriate CRS (18-6-401 - Wrongs to Children - Child Abuse):

"Knowingly". The requirement of "knowingly" in former subsection (1) did not refer to the actor's awareness that his conduct was practically certain to cause the proscribed result; instead, "knowingly" referred to the actor's general awareness of the abusive nature of his conduct in relation to the child or his awareness of the circumstances in which he committed an act against the well-being of the child. People v. Noble, 635 P.2d 203 (Colo. 1981); People v. Thompson, 756 P.2d 353 (Colo. 1988).
​

The rest of this post may be more than anyone needs to know about the concept of the word "knowingly" as used in the TB, but it's good to have it all in context to understand exactly what it means.

In the referred case (People v. Noble, 635 P.2d 203) the court's ruling had the following explanation in its decision (https://www.courtlistener.com/colo/76o1/people-v-noble/):

Similarly, the requirement of "knowingly" in the statutory definition of child abuse does not refer to the actor's awareness that his conduct is practically certain to cause the proscribed result. Instead, "knowingly" refers to the actor's general awareness of the abusive nature of his conduct in relation to the child or his awareness of the circumstances in which he commits an act against the well-being of the child. Although this distinction between an awareness of one's conduct or circumstance, on the one hand, and an awareness of the result of one's conduct, on the other, at times may be a subtle one, it is a distinction recognized by the Colorado Criminal Code itself. Sections 18-1-502 and 18-1-503(4), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8); see People v. Johnson, Colo., (1981) (S.Ct. No. 80SA26, announced September 14, 1981); People v. Andrews, Colo., 632 P.2d 1012 (1981).

If the legislature intended criminal responsibility to hinge on the actor's awareness that his conduct is practically certain to cause the proscribed result, it hardly would have established as an alternative to the element of "knowingly" the culpable mental state of "negligently." A person acts "negligently" when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists. Section 18-1-501(3), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). A failure to perceive a risk does not entail an awareness that one's conduct is practically certain to cause the proscribed result. Under section 18-6-401(1), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), however, child abuse may be committed by acting "negligently," thus indicating a legislative intent to define the mental culpability for the offense in terms of conduct or circumstance rather than solely in terms of result.
​

From the other cited case (People v. Thompson, 756 P.2d 353), the following (http://www.leagle.com/decision/19881109756P2d353_11109.xml/PEOPLE v. THOMPSON):

[T]he requirement of "knowingly" in the statutory definition of child abuse does not refer to the actor's awareness that his conduct is practically certain to cause the proscribed result. Instead, "knowingly" refers to the actor's general awareness of the abusive nature of his conduct in relation to the child or his awareness of the circumstances in which he commits an act against the well-being of the child. Although this distinction between awareness of one's conduct or circumstance, on the one hand, and an awareness of the result of one's conduct, on the other, at times may be a subtle one, it is a distinction recognized by the Colorado Criminal Code itself.

635 P.2d at 210 (citations omitted). The underlying principle to our holding in Noble was that child abuse is not a crime in which an actor knowingly effects a particular result, rather, it is an offense in which an actor knowingly creates a situation that seriously threatens the well-being of a child. The child abuse statute "proscribes acts of mistreatment which include inaction as well as action." People v. Jennings, 641 P.2d 276, 281 (Colo.1982). In our view, the General Assembly did not intend to limit the crime of child abuse by inaction to those instances where the accused is aware that his inaction is practically certain to result in the child's death.
​

 

[bettybaby00]

The CRS as relates to GJ reports is 16-5-205.5. (Grand jury reports). From there (bbm):

(1) In any case in which a grand jury does not return an indictment, the grand jury may prepare or ask to be prepared a report of its findings if the grand jury determines that preparation and release of a report would be in the public interest, as described in subsection (5) of this section. The determination to prepare and release a report pursuant to this section must be made by an affirmative vote of at least the number of jurors that would have been required to return an indictment. The report shall be accompanied by certification that the grand jury has determined that release of the report is in the public interest, as described in subsection (5) of this section.
​

Further [Subsection (5) referred above] (bbm):

(5) Release of a grand jury report pursuant to this section may be deemed to be in the public interest only if the report addresses one or more of the following:

(a) Allegations of the misuse or misapplication of public funds;

(b) Allegations of abuse of authority by a public servant, as defined in section 18-1-901 (3) (o), C.R.S., or a peace officer, as described in section 16-2.5-101;

(c) Allegations of misfeasance or malfeasance with regard to a governmental function, as defined in section 18-1-901 (3) (j), C.R.S.;

(d) Allegations of commission of a class 1, class 2, or class 3 felony.
​

*nods emphatically!

That's why I remarked, "the GJ didn't cooperate, now did they?"

Also interesting is the public interest specifications relating to class 1, 2, & 3 felonies!

Oh and let's not forget the conflict of interest that the Whites point out in their letter with regard to all the lawyers involved with supporting the bill, as well as those assisting the BPD with the case.

Eta....

knowingly" refers to the actor's general awareness of the abusive nature of his conduct in relation to the child or his awareness of the circumstances in which he commits an act against the well-being of the child.

That is exactly how I had interpreted the term knowingly. I had remarked earlier somewhere, that perhaps JR felt it was PRs "job" to handle this situation between the kids, and could explain his perceived anger (in part) toward PR that morning b/c she obviously failed to "handle" the situation.....spectacularly.

 

[lawstudent]

(rsbm)Lawstudent, I believe everyone knows that if someone in the media reports something defamatory, the person (or group) defamed can sue. I think this is the only situation in US courts where essentially the burden of proof is then on the defendant to prove the story true (or that it was believed to be true and reported without malice). The calculated risk the plaintiff is taking (if he knows the story is true) is that what was only an unsubstantiated report before the suit, if proven in court, then becomes an accepted fact. But if in order to prove its side, the defendant has to reveal confidential sources, they will usually seek to settle out of court. Reporters will even go to jail to defend their right to not reveal confidential sources, but that is in cases other than libel/defamation where a judge charges contempt of court for their refusal to disclose sources.

Lacy never used the word "exonerate". That is a word that the press applied to what she did. From http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exoneration/:

Exoneration refers to a court order that discharges a person from liability. In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent.
​

No one can be "exonerated" of something they were never charged with or convicted of. Lacy's action would better be described as a Grant of Absolution, considering her stated reasons for the declaration. I don't know of anyone with any legal acumen who thinks her doing it was a good idea (as long as no one had been charged). Imagine how difficult her actions would make it for prosecutors if new evidence was found that led to a Ramsey arrest?

The secrecy of GJ proceedings (I think) is mostly so witnesses feel secure that their testimony will not be disclosed. I don't remember right now where in the statutes the secrecy issue is addressed. I'll try to look for it later, or you can search for it here:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/

Yes, what you said about defamation law was what I was trying to say, but I did so inarticulately. I was just making the distinction that the goal would be protection of sources, not fear of being found guilty of defamation in itself. And the media tends to leave people with an impression that certain opinions or misrepresented truths can constitute defamation as a matter of law, so I try to correct that perception.

And I know that no one can be exonerated in this situation because we have no idea what happened - I just meant that that was the impression the prosecutor gave, which you rarely see. And yeah, it's such a disaster if they were to prosecute later - it was such a bizarre move.

The grand jury secrecy makes sense, but I was trying to figure out if it has an endpoint. I don't think it can actually be indefinite. And it's not about the witnesses as much as the accused, I think. Once it goes to trial or the case resolves, it can all come out - the witnesses can be subpoenaed and all that, or they can talk at length about the proceedings if they want to. But the idea is that until it resolves, people who aren't ultimately prosecuted for anything shouldn't have their names dragged through the mud because a grand jury happens to be investigating them.

 

[questfortrue]

Basically, IMO it says it's still murder in the first degree, even if the person committing is under the age limit.

All so confusing...the sexual assault is a felony & would make murder first degree. It couldn't be accidental if the head bash was part if the sexual assault.

The Ramsey's ...TB seems to be deliberately lacking some verbiage.

Keep coming back to that verbiage in True Bill VII and came across another person's take on this - Craig Silverman. Silverman was a deputy DA for the City of Denver for 16 years. He has some interpretations of the TBs which shed some light, but since the case was not taken to trial, IDK of any of this can be considered conclusive evaluation of them. A snippet of his thoughts include:
“If I am correct, the true bill on Count VII may reveal the grand jury was convinced that one of the Ramsey parents committed counts I (murder in the first) and IV (child abuse resulting in death), but was not convinced which Ramsey did what. Perhaps a third person who the Ramseys knew, and permitted into the house, was considered.

“We can’t know for sure because the Accessory charge does not delineate what form of Child Abuse Resulting in Death it is referencing, although it would make most sense for it to be the class one felony that is a form of First Degree Murder. We cannot know from the Accessory charge because the law of accessory in Colorado reads in pertinent part:
(3) Being an accessory to crime is a class 4 felony if the offender knows that the person being assisted has committed, or has been convicted of, or is charged by pending information, indictment, or complaint with a crime, and if that crime is designated by this code as a class 1 or class 2 felony.”

More about this can be read here - http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2013/10/28/jonbenet-grand-jury-indictment-could-re-ignite-case/

Another question I’ve had is whether if the perpetrator of 1st degree murder has died without being tried, what happens to the person accused of accessory to the crime. Recently found 2 cases (both in Colorado) in which the accessory was convicted before the actual perpetrator. In one of these the perpetrator had killed himself. In the other the DA simply tried the accessory first.

Trying not to muck up this topic. Maybe there will be more to come on this. I know Kolar thought the moving of JB’s body into the WC constituted the legal definition of kidnapping, a class 1 felony, which has no statute of limitations.

Disclaimer: I’ve no standing in any legal field, and this Is just info from the web. All moo, etc.

 

[lawstudent]

“If I am correct, the true bill on Count VII may reveal the grand jury was convinced that one of the Ramsey parents committed counts I (murder in the first) and IV (child abuse resulting in death), but was not convinced which Ramsey did what. Perhaps a third person who the Ramseys knew, and permitted into the house, was considered.

“We can’t know for sure because the Accessory charge does not delineate what form of Child Abuse Resulting in Death it is referencing, although it would make most sense for it to be the class one felony that is a form of First Degree Murder. We cannot know from the Accessory charge because the law of accessory in Colorado reads in pertinent part:
(3) Being an accessory to crime is a class 4 felony if the offender knows that the person being assisted has committed, or has been convicted of, or is charged by pending information, indictment, or complaint with a crime, and if that crime is designated by this code as a class 1 or class 2 felony.”
[/url]

Another question I’ve had is whether if the perpetrator of 1st degree murder has died without being tried, what happens to the person accused of accessory to the crime. Recently found 2 cases (both in Colorado) in which the accessory was convicted before the actual perpetrator. In one of these the perpetrator had killed himself. In the other the DA simply tried the accessory first.

Trying not to muck up this topic. Maybe there will be more to come on this. I know Kolar thought the moving of JB’s body into the WC constituted the legal definition of kidnapping, a class 1 felony, which has no statute of limitations.

Disclaimer: I’ve no standing in any legal field, and this Is just info from the web. All moo, etc.

I am not at attorney and can't get involved in the unauthorized practice of law, so I'll just get that disclaimer out of the way! This is all just from my own interest in the law as opposed to any of my studies, mostly.

Indicting just means you can go to trial - it isn't a sign the jury thinks you definitely did it by any means. So the whole indictment makes no sense to me. Indicting accessory to murder without indicting for murder, unless they think a third party was involved in murder. It's possible that could be Burke, because even if he couldn't be charged, grand juries often will indict pretty broadly - they are not legal experts. Or they thought only one did it and felt bad indicting both for murder, which would be silly because that doesn't mean both would be charged and convicted, just that they could be depending on the results of the investigation. But grand juries often kind of miss the nuances.

The accessory to abuse/abuse charges do seem to indicate they didn't know who did what, though. Based on the investigation, prosecutors could decide which one was an accessory, which one did it, or if both did it. Or maybe the jury if they had both options, although I'm not sure if you can give them both on a charge like that - sometimes they collapse into each other - you can't be found guilty of both doing and helping with a crime, I'm pretty sure.

I believe accessories can be charged and convicted, but if the person was never convicted of murder, obviously the prosecutor's case is a lot weaker in most situations. They usually wouldn't bother unless it was a particularly egregious crime. The law you posted seems to indicate you can be convicted as an accessory just for knowing they committed murder or some other crime. Since murder is a legal term, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, because you can know they killed somebody, but they might not meet the definition of that crime. But it seems like they would be guilty regardless - no need for a conviction. The case still would be hard with the person being dead, though. In the cases where the person committed suicide, they would already have been charged or indicted, right? So clearly that renders it possible to be charged, but convicted would be harder.

I don't think moving a dead body would ever be considered kidnapping. If she were alive, it could be, but she would have to be held against her will - meaning she either resisted or was tied up, so she would probably have to be conscious. Tying her up would be kidnapping though, if the person intended to take her. That's a stretch though - I doubt that's the felony being referred to. And if the theory is that it was the parents, they can't kidnap their own child legally, unless they didn't have custody. So it wouldn't make sense if the parents are being held responsible.

 

[questfortrue]

I am not at attorney and can't get involved in the unauthorized practice of law, so I'll just get that disclaimer out of the way! This is all just from my own interest in the law as opposed to any of my studies, mostly.

Indicting just means you can go to trial - it isn't a sign the jury thinks you definitely did it by any means. So the whole indictment makes no sense to me. Indicting accessory to murder without indicting for murder, unless they think a third party was involved in murder. It's possible that could be Burke, because even if he couldn't be charged, grand juries often will indict pretty broadly - they are not legal experts. Or they thought only one did it and felt bad indicting both for murder, which would be silly because that doesn't mean both would be charged and convicted, just that they could be depending on the results of the investigation. But grand juries often kind of miss the nuances.

The accessory to abuse/abuse charges do seem to indicate they didn't know who did what, though. Based on the investigation, prosecutors could decide which one was an accessory, which one did it, or if both did it. Or maybe the jury if they had both options, although I'm not sure if you can give them both on a charge like that - sometimes they collapse into each other - you can't be found guilty of both doing and helping with a crime, I'm pretty sure.

I believe accessories can be charged and convicted, but if the person was never convicted of murder, obviously the prosecutor's case is a lot weaker in most situations. They usually wouldn't bother unless it was a particularly egregious crime. The law you posted seems to indicate you can be convicted as an accessory just for knowing they committed murder or some other crime. Since murder is a legal term, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, because you can know they killed somebody, but they might not meet the definition of that crime. But it seems like they would be guilty regardless - no need for a conviction. The case still would be hard with the person being dead, though. In the cases where the person committed suicide, they would already have been charged or indicted, right? So clearly that renders it possible to be charged, but convicted would be harder.

I don't think moving a dead body would ever be considered kidnapping. If she were alive, it could be, but she would have to be held against her will - meaning she either resisted or was tied up, so she would probably have to be conscious. Tying her up would be kidnapping though, if the person intended to take her. That's a stretch though - I doubt that's the felony being referred to. And if the theory is that it was the parents, they can't kidnap their own child legally, unless they didn't have custody. So it wouldn't make sense if the parents are being held responsible.

If I understand a post by Cynic correctly, "there are lesser known, technical legal elements involved in the charge of kidnapping." You can read them here (post 378) - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10129&page=32

One of the cases I referred to occurred in the Denver region. A Thornton woman and her son were named accessory after the fact, even though the alleged perpetrator had only been named, not indicted. He committed suicide a day after the murder and it's in this story:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25133089/thornton-woman-arrested-charges-accessory-double-homicide .

Appreciate your thoughts and questions, because I've no legal background, and you raise ideas to consider, so thank you. :seeya:

 

[UKGuy]

Keep coming back to that verbiage in True Bill VII and came across another person's take on this - Craig Silverman. Silverman was a deputy DA for the City of Denver for 16 years. He has some interpretations of the TBs which shed some light, but since the case was not taken to trial, IDK of any of this can be considered conclusive evaluation of them. A snippet of his thoughts include:
“If I am correct, the true bill on Count VII may reveal the grand jury was convinced that one of the Ramsey parents committed counts I (murder in the first) and IV (child abuse resulting in death), but was not convinced which Ramsey did what. Perhaps a third person who the Ramseys knew, and permitted into the house, was considered.

“We can’t know for sure because the Accessory charge does not delineate what form of Child Abuse Resulting in Death it is referencing, although it would make most sense for it to be the class one felony that is a form of First Degree Murder. We cannot know from the Accessory charge because the law of accessory in Colorado reads in pertinent part:
(3) Being an accessory to crime is a class 4 felony if the offender knows that the person being assisted has committed, or has been convicted of, or is charged by pending information, indictment, or complaint with a crime, and if that crime is designated by this code as a class 1 or class 2 felony.”

More about this can be read here - http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2013/10/28/jonbenet-grand-jury-indictment-could-re-ignite-case/

Another question I’ve had is whether if the perpetrator of 1st degree murder has died without being tried, what happens to the person accused of accessory to the crime. Recently found 2 cases (both in Colorado) in which the accessory was convicted before the actual perpetrator. In one of these the perpetrator had killed himself. In the other the DA simply tried the accessory first.

Trying not to muck up this topic. Maybe there will be more to come on this. I know Kolar thought the moving of JB’s body into the WC constituted the legal definition of kidnapping, a class 1 felony, which has no statute of limitations.

Disclaimer: I’ve no standing in any legal field, and this Is just info from the web. All moo, etc.

questfortrue,

I know Kolar thought the moving of JB’s body into the WC constituted the legal definition of kidnapping, a class 1 felony, which has no statute of limitations.

I think you would have to demonstrate, beyond doubt, that the person moving JonBenet lacked the authority to do so.

Either parent might make some crazy claim as to why they did this, negating any kidnap charges.

Moving JonBenet into the WC would more likely fall under the tampering with evidence statutes.

Also, I'm certain there will be some specific felony crimes of stealing, moving cadavers etc. Consider Mr Burke and Hare.

I reckon Kolar's theory is constructed in such a manner as to avoid any difficult questions arising regarding BR.

Since Kolar regularly prefaces answers with qualifications, i.e. its GJ and ring-fenced or its non-disclosed aspects of the case and he cannot discuss etc.

Kolar's theory more or less suggests the last person to see JonBenet alive was BR in the breakfast bar?

Once JR leaves us, if ST and JK et al continue using such legalese then I reckon we will know beyond doubt who attacked JonBenet.

I think it was Holmes who said: once you have eliminated the improbable only the probable is left, or something similar?

.

 

[otg]

Keep coming back to that verbiage in True Bill VII and came across another person's take on this - Craig Silverman. Silverman was a deputy DA for the City of Denver for 16 years. He has some interpretations of the TBs which shed some light, but since the case was not taken to trial, IDK of any of this can be considered conclusive evaluation of them. A snippet of his thoughts include:
“If I am correct, the true bill on Count VII may reveal the grand jury was convinced that one of the Ramsey parents committed counts I (murder in the first) and IV (child abuse resulting in death), but was not convinced which Ramsey did what. Perhaps a third person who the Ramseys knew, and permitted into the house, was considered.

“We can’t know for sure because the Accessory charge does not delineate what form of Child Abuse Resulting in Death it is referencing, although it would make most sense for it to be the class one felony that is a form of First Degree Murder. We cannot know from the Accessory charge because the law of accessory in Colorado reads in pertinent part:
(3) Being an accessory to crime is a class 4 felony if the offender knows that the person being assisted has committed, or has been convicted of, or is charged by pending information, indictment, or complaint with a crime, and if that crime is designated by this code as a class 1 or class 2 felony.”

More about this can be read here - http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2013/10/28/jonbenet-grand-jury-indictment-could-re-ignite-case/

Another question I’ve had is whether if the perpetrator of 1st degree murder has died without being tried, what happens to the person accused of accessory to the crime. Recently found 2 cases (both in Colorado) in which the accessory was convicted before the actual perpetrator. In one of these the perpetrator had killed himself. In the other the DA simply tried the accessory first.

Trying not to muck up this topic. Maybe there will be more to come on this. I know Kolar thought the moving of JB’s body into the WC constituted the legal definition of kidnapping, a class 1 felony, which has no statute of limitations.

Disclaimer: I’ve no standing in any legal field, and this Is just info from the web. All moo, etc.

Thanks, QFT, for the link to this article. (I hadn’t seen it.) Silverman did exactly what I had tried to do earlier in trying to fill in the gaps of the TBs that weren’t released. But the problem (IMO) is that he starts out with assumptions that cause the rest of his conclusions to be wrong. His first paragraph (bbm):

JonBenet Ramsey was deliberately murdered in 1996 after she came home from Christmas dinner. It was First Degree Murder. Death came from the deliberate twisting of a garrote placed around her neck.
​

His first assumption is the same mistake that most lay persons make when they hear the term First Degree Murder (M-1). That assumption is in his first statement that she was “deliberately murdered”. While deliberation assumes premeditation and intent, and is indeed the usual reason for the M-1 charge, it is not the only reason that a homicide can be elevated to first degree. If a person accidentally drives over and kills a pedestrian who steps out in front of the driver, at most (depending on the exact circumstances) he/she might be charged with negligent homicide -- a class 5 felony. If on the other hand the same accident happens while the driver is attempting to flee the scene of a criminal act (e.g., a robbery), the death then becomes M-1 (felony murder) -- even though there was no premeditation and no intent to hit the pedestrian. It's because the death occurred as a result of the person's actions while committing some other crime. From CRS 18-3-105 (bbm):

The purpose of the felony murder provision was to make every homicide committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate certain felonies murder, which may be punished by death, if the jury so determines, without regard to premeditation. Andrews v. People, 33 Colo. 193, 79 P. 1031 (1905); Robbins v. People, 142 Colo. 254, 350 P.2d 818 (1960); Whitman v. People, 161 Colo. 110, 420 P.2d 416 (1966).

Felony murder occurs when a murder is committed in the commission of certain designated felonies. People v. Salas, 189 Colo. 111, 538 P.2d 437 (1975).
​

Those “designated felonies” that would apply to the Felony Murder charge are: arson, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, and sexual assault (CRS 18-3-102(1) (b)). In his book, James Kolar discusses the possibility of Felony Murder in regards to commission of the felony of Kidnapping. That may be possible in theory, but I think it would be a difficult case for any prosecutor to make trying to convince a jury that she was kidnapped by a family member within her own home. I wonder if this might have been an intentional misdirection by Kolar from what he had to have known. That being that since JonBenet had obviously been sexually assaulted, that was actually the crime that would raise the homicide to a charge of Felony Murder. He stated in an interview after the TBs were disclosed that he was aware of the TBs, but that since it was related to the secrecy of GJ he could not relate anything about it in his book.

So I think Craig Silverman is simply wrong in his assumption (of the RGJ reasoning) that there was deliberation in the mind of the person who caused her death. But I’m not surprised really that he’s wrong in that assumption because his third sentence shows that he still doesn’t understand how the ligature functioned. I’d like to ask him to demonstrate how twisting the device that was found around JonBenet’s neck would tighten it. Or for that matter, anyone. Someone please show or explain how that ligature was twisted as it was found on her dead body.

Later in the same article, Silverman writes:

If I am correct, the true bill on Count VII may reveal the grand jury was convinced that one of the Ramsey parents committed counts I and IV, but was not convinced which Ramsey did what. Perhaps a third person who the Ramseys knew, and permitted into the house, was considered.
​

So he only sees two possibilities as to what the GJ reasoned: (1) that one of the parents was the principal or that (2) it was “a third person... permitted into the house.” Silverman doesn’t even acknowledge the other (most probable, IMO) possibility that it might be the “elephant in the room”, the other person within the home, their other child one month shy of culpability. This is the same mistake investigators early in the case made -- the same mistake so many here continue to make. That mistake is usually disguised as a disbelief that someone his age is capable of the physical ability to cause any of the injuries found on her body, or that there is no other evidence of a mental demeanor to which can be attributed the intention to do it. If the RGJ felt either of the two Ramsey parents was directly responsible for the death and that they colluded with one another to cover it up, they would have both been charged and it would have been left for the court to determine the principal. Silverman’s other possibility (“a third person... permitted into the house”) is just too ridiculous (IMO) to even consider. Yes, it's a possibility we have to keep in mind; but really -- how likely is it unless we want to consider the conspiratorial theories of underground sex-rings or satanic rituals.

 

[otg]

Two pertinent terms:

• Lesser included offenses
• Unindicted co-conspirator