Grand Jury True Bills John & Patsy Discussion thread

[UKGuy]

In going back, and reading some of his interviews, it seems evident that Kolar was aware of the TBs. In his book, he recounts several written communications with various people that accompanied his case theory. He always indicates that the versions we are reading are redacted, and it's only now dawning on me that part of the redacted language likely contained references to the TBs against the Rs.

When I brought this up earlier, I had done so b/c I read a comment somewhere that for some reason made me question Kolar's knowledge of the TBs. Idk why, but I had another aha moment. AHs actions surrounding the TBs was kept so well under wraps, and were so misleading I never considered who else was aware of them, outside of the actual GJ members of course. This promted me to look back at the exchange with ML after kolar had sent her an updated version of his theory which included the information regarding the train tracks...in part he wrote



It seems clear that there was evidence that he knows the GJ didn't see. For sure, BRs records, as well as the train track info. Despite not having this perspective, the GJ concluded the Rs were involved, and he knows Lacy KNOWS this as well.

After first ignoring this communication, and then after she is forced to acknowledge it, she reveals her true colors. To me she is all but affirming that she never intended to further the investigation.

He summarizes her reply...


When she finally responds, it seems evident the only way she saw this getting solved was through a confession, or by the tDNA miraculously being matched.



Ugggghhhh...despite KNOWING of the existence of the TBs ML had no desire to move the investigation forward unless it was a crazed intruder. Was there a special Ramsey kool-aid? And to top it off, she reminds him of his vulnerability regarding civil action!!! From who? Wood!????:banghead:

Hunter's refusal to sign the TBs is excused b/c he claimed he wouldn't have been able to win in court with the evidence they had. So why then would a new prosecutor be so unwilling to obtain that evidence in order to turn it into a winnable case? When given new avenues to pursue that supported the GJ's findings, why would she reject viable leads this way??

It makes me so angry. :tantrum:

Someone else commented what possibly could come out once JR is no longer around, I fear we may have to wait out more than just him. I'm not sure whose behavior is worse, AH or ML?????

:tantrum:

bettybaby00,
Kolar does not need ML's mafioso style warnings, i.e. horse's head, to know he will have his pants sued off him if he breaks rank on the Ramsey case.

I reckon what Kolar is flagging up is incontestable evidence of a conspiracy, since he is publicly attesting that there is evidence available to go to trial, yet nobody wants to know?


.

 

[questfortrue]

bettybaby00,
Kolar does not need ML's mafioso style warnings, i.e. horse's head, to know he will have his pants sued off him if he breaks rank on the Ramsey case.

I reckon what Kolar is flagging up is incontestable evidence of a conspiracy, since he is publicly attesting that there is evidence available to go to trial, yet nobody wants to know?


.

A very pertinent question has been over the months/years and answered a few times regarding why shouldn’t the R’s have obtained lawyers to protect themselves. Pretty much everyone deserves legal protection, both innocent and guilty. No question. It was, however, the speed and timing of obtaining attorneys which raised eyebrows, and the several different answers given by JR as to why they were hired. But this hiring of so many attorneys, one for each of his wives (ex, included) and all the kids perplexed me. Even the pastor in Atlanta had an attorney present when the BPD interviewed him.

So one of the things I always struggled to understand, if BDI, was why a parent would spend $100,000’s, to protect a child who couldn’t be prosecuted anyway. Of course, loss of face/status would be an obvious answer. And preserving a future for themselves as well as for an underage child. But then there are 2 other possible motivations and reasons: 1) the entire family had involvement and 2) the snowball effect. WS’ers have discussed family involvement for more than a decade. However, the snowball effect is one which hasn’t been talked about too much. It’s an effect which appears when a powerhouse of a law firm is hired. I mention “powerhouse,” because the firm hired was able to accomplish things which a smaller boutique firm wouldn’t have been able to pull off.

When such politically connected lawyers became involved so early, this became like a snowball effect, gathering more and more people to provide deniability. The law firm (likely with JR’s approval and consent) hired JD, a famous ex-FBI profiler. Presto - instant credibility for their clients to point to JD’s analysis which also encourages others (like Gov. R?) to support keeping AH on the job and not hire a special prosecutor. In order to stay above the fray ex-gov Romer does finally “strongly encourage” a GJ and keeps AH in charge. Always the question “why” appears. Why, what’s it to the H law firm, that AH stays on the job?

There are probably several reasons and only one of them was AH’s record of plea bargaining and not taking cases to court, but it doesn’t seem like there was ever anyone’s intent or desire to even bring charges. AH had the power and some ‘stake’ in burying the case, whether the GJ came back with anything or not. IMO, it’s that simple. The standard response of not enough evidence always fits.

Another matter was in the works too: The loss of face for the entire community. Who wants to expose something which could involve a “star” in the community economy. Access Graphics, had just hit 1 billion. JR had been given a prestigious award. It’s like exposing Winston Churchill ran a brothel and a side-business of dog fighting (fictitious analogy). Tawdry business.

The other issue at play was obviously connections. (Nods to SD’s book highlighting this in detail.) In Boulder the legal community was extremely close, everyone having worked with everyone at one time or another. If one can relate to the manner in which this may have played out, it reminds of the series “House of Cards” - too many stirring the pot and having to back up others. The old adage that once one starts lying/deceiving/obfuscating it’s hard to stop, is applicable.

Within the mainstream media, JR and PR managed to portray themselves as victims (‘ course, if one believes in an intruder they were). The books they authored, ‘ahem’ with the help of ghost writers, had titles emphasizing their victimization. The loss of luxury items, again highlighting their loss of status and wealth. Moo this represents a masterful ploy. The true victim had lain in a dank dark WC. Don’t look at the real victim, look at what has been done to us. This portrayal aided those who were part of the “snowball effect.”

While it’d be tempting to look at some kind of conspiracy, it simply may be at any point in time just one person doing a favor for another, or joining the power broker's "team" without anyone ever knowing the goings on behind the curtains/ behind the doors of the R household.

(This post inspired by issues brought to light in SD’s book, and thank you to bettybaby00 post “Ballless in Boulder,” and to otg for pointing to this website http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/6d/6deg.html.) All JMHO.

 

[otg]

^^^ Excellent, qft. Simply excellent!

 

[Darly314]

I'm afraid I don't see this quite as cut and dried as everyone else here.
They were indicted on the fourth count, to me that means the evidence doesn't point to any one person but can point to several. Which means the staging and clean up of the crime scene did its job and confused the case.

I think the GJ did a good job and indicted on the part they knew they could. A child died at home and she had signs of both prior and recent sexual assault. It was apparent to the GJ that the Ramseys had inserted themselves in the case. The reason doesn't have to be Burke, it could be to cover for one or both of their complicity. It could also mean they covered for an intruder (although that is very unlikely).

I think the DA decided not to indict because it would be a disaster and he was scared of that. While the Ramseys may be convicted, it would probably still leave the murderer unrevealed. I think he had no confidence in the cops and no confidence in the GJ's interpretation of the evidence. My only question on this part is if the Ramseys knew they were indicted but weren't going to trial. It would be interesting to find that out.

I don't think this automatically means it was Burke. If that was revealed in the transcripts it would have leaked out by now. Having an answer for such a high profile crime like this wouldn't have stayed secret. I know there would be consequences for revealing deliberations and testimony in a GJ but I bet many of the media would more than happy to compensate anyone for their contempt charges.

Could the case even make it trial with the missing Defendant? And kids that age might be tried in adult court depending on ability to understand, in my state at least. So, IF in fact the parents helped the son it would be a go; still, the complexity of the weapon, and length of time the crime took, plus the indicia of premeditation, all point to a more mature killer. Also the indictment was never issued, the GJ recommended, the SA declined. Correctly in my view, as of today.

 

[bettybaby00]

A very pertinent question has been over the months/years and answered a few times regarding why shouldn’t the R’s have obtained lawyers to protect themselves. Pretty much everyone deserves legal protection, both innocent and guilty. No question. It was, however, the speed and timing of obtaining attorneys which raised eyebrows, and the several different answers given by JR as to why they were hired. But this hiring of so many attorneys, one for each of his wives (ex, included) and all the kids perplexed me. Even the pastor in Atlanta had an attorney present when the BPD interviewed him.

So one of the things I always struggled to understand, if BDI, was why a parent would spend $100,000’s, to protect a child who couldn’t be prosecuted anyway. Of course, loss of face/status would be an obvious answer. And preserving a future for themselves as well as for an underage child. But then there are 2 other possible motivations and reasons: 1) the entire family had involvement and 2) the snowball effect. WS’ers have discussed family involvement for more than a decade. However, the snowball effect is one which hasn’t been talked about too much. It’s an effect which appears when a powerhouse of a law firm is hired. I mention “powerhouse,” because the firm hired was able to accomplish things which a smaller boutique firm wouldn’t have been able to pull off.

When such politically connected lawyers became involved so early, this became like a snowball effect, gathering more and more people to provide deniability. The law firm (likely with JR’s approval and consent) hired JD, a famous ex-FBI profiler. Presto - instant credibility for their clients to point to JD’s analysis which also encourages others (like Gov. R?) to support keeping AH on the job and not hire a special prosecutor. In order to stay above the fray ex-gov Romer does finally “strongly encourage” a GJ and keeps AH in charge. Always the question “why” appears. Why, what’s it to the H law firm, that AH stays on the job?

There are probably several reasons and only one of them was AH’s record of plea bargaining and not taking cases to court, but it doesn’t seem like there was ever anyone’s intent or desire to even bring charges. AH had the power and some ‘stake’ in burying the case, whether the GJ came back with anything or not. IMO, it’s that simple. The standard response of not enough evidence always fits.

Another matter was in the works too: The loss of face for the entire community. Who wants to expose something which could involve a “star” in the community economy. Access Graphics, had just hit 1 billion. JR had been given a prestigious award. It’s like exposing Winston Churchill ran a brothel and a side-business of dog fighting (fictitious analogy). Tawdry business.

The other issue at play was obviously connections. (Nods to SD’s book highlighting this in detail.) In Boulder the legal community was extremely close, everyone having worked with everyone at one time or another. If one can relate to the manner in which this may have played out, it reminds of the series “House of Cards” - too many stirring the pot and having to back up others. The old adage that once one starts lying/deceiving/obfuscating it’s hard to stop, is applicable.

Within the mainstream media, JR and PR managed to portray themselves as victims (‘ course, if one believes in an intruder they were). The books they authored, ‘ahem’ with the help of ghost writers, had titles emphasizing their victimization. The loss of luxury items, again highlighting their loss of status and wealth. Moo this represents a masterful ploy. The true victim had lain in a dank dark WC. Don’t look at the real victim, look at what has been done to us. This portrayal aided those who were part of the “snowball effect.”

While it’d be tempting to look at some kind of conspiracy, it simply may be at any point in time just one person doing a favor for another, or joining the power broker's "team" without anyone ever knowing the goings on behind the curtains/ behind the doors of the R household.

(This post inspired by issues brought to light in SD’s book, and thank you to bettybaby00 post “Ballless in Boulder,” and to otg for pointing to this website http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/6d/6deg.html.) All JMHO.

*applauds*

The entrenchment of the DA within Boulders legal and political environs should never have been allowed to fester and grow. Ironically the relationships are incestuous, and that very behavior likely played a factor in JRBs death. Doc Miller theorized, "the Rs were shielded by a rich woman's parasol," aptly describes how this case played out. It was a perfect storm.

Once the circus was in full swing, the death of a beautiful 6 year old became collatitral damage. The Rs welfare trumped justice for JRB. It was only after the JMK debacle that Kolar knew he had to speak, and his is an almost singular voice against those who let her down so horribly.

Within such a construct BDI becomes very plausible IMO, it makes a good deal of what we know fit. I don't feel "it would have come out," eventually, b/c all we have to do is look at the duplicity of both DAs actions and how long it took for that info to come out. Maybe we'll have to wait another 17 years to get the rest of the story.

"House of Cards" is a great analogy.

 

[bettybaby00]

Could the case even make it trial with the missing Defendant? And kids that age might be tried in adult court depending on ability to understand, in my state at least. So, IF in fact the parents helped the son it would be a go; still, the complexity of the weapon, and length of time the crime took, plus the indicia of premeditation, all point to a more mature killer. Also the indictment was never issued, the GJ recommended, the SA declined. Correctly in my view, as of today.

I think in theory yes.

If a DA was willing to prosecute under the idea that "an unprosecutable minor is also involved," yet these defendants played a role and can be prosecuted.

I don't think the law was designed as a "get out of jail" free card, but those high priced lawyers worked it to their advantage. Perhaps if BR had been looked at according to protocol, things would have been different. They ran a smoke and mirrors campaign that worked. Why admit to something if they can get a more desirable outcome by stonewalling? The snowball effect worked to great advantage. Why mess that up? There are hundreds if not thousands of inmates who claim they are innocent of the crimes they're incarcerated for.

What the GJ concluded can't be ignored, and DNA doesn't save their butts. It all circles back to the prior sexual contact.

That's not a random intruder, and it's not a known associate......they were all looked at...intensely.

Only a family member(s) as the perpetrator fits.

MOO, MOO, MOO.

 

[Venom]

I think in theory yes.

If a DA was willing to prosecute under the idea that "an unprosecutable minor is also involved," yet these defendants played a role and can be prosecuted.

I don't think the law was designed as a "get out of jail" free card, but those high priced lawyers worked it to their advantage. Perhaps if BR had been looked at according to protocol, things would have been different. They ran a smoke and mirrors campaign that worked. Why admit to something if they can get a more desirable outcome by stonewalling? The snowball effect worked to great advantage. Why mess that up? There are hundreds if not thousands of inmates who claim they are innocent of the crimes they're incarcerated for.

What the GJ concluded can't be ignored, and DNA doesn't save their butts. It all circles back to the prior sexual contact.

That's not a random intruder, and it's not a known associate......they were all looked at...intensely.

Only a family member(s) as the perpetrator fits.

MOO, MOO, MOO.

Great post.

 

[Darly314]

I think in theory yes.

If a DA was willing to prosecute under the idea that "an unprosecutable minor is also involved," yet these defendants played a role and can be prosecuted.

I don't think the law was designed as a "get out of jail" free card, but those high priced lawyers worked it to their advantage. Perhaps if BR had been looked at according to protocol, things would have been different. They ran a smoke and mirrors campaign that worked. Why admit to something if they can get a more desirable outcome by stonewalling? The snowball effect worked to great advantage. Why mess that up? There are hundreds if not thousands of inmates who claim they are innocent of the crimes they're incarcerated for.

What the GJ concluded can't be ignored, and DNA doesn't save their butts. It all circles back to the prior sexual contact.

That's not a random intruder, and it's not a known associate......they were all looked at...intensely.

Only a family member(s) as the perpetrator fits.

MOO, MOO, MOO.

Why would Burke Ramsey be "an unprosecutable minor"?

 

[Tawny]

He was too young to be charged with a crime in the state of Colorado.

 

[Darly314]

He was too young to be charged with a crime in the state of Colorado.

Ok, I BELIEVE he could have been in Florida, but I will accept your greater knowledge of Colorado law. At this point a Grand Jury should reconvene and look at Burke Ramsey, if allowed under Colorado law.

 

[otg]

Ok, I BELIEVE he could have been in Florida, but I will accept your greater knowledge of Colorado law. At this point a Grand Jury should reconvene and look at Burke Ramsey, if allowed under Colorado law.

As Tawny has stated, it is not allowed under Colorado law. This has been discussed at length on various threads here at WS. Essentially, any criminal act committed by a child under the age of 10 did not happen. They can't be charged, they can't be named as a suspect, in effect they don't exist as far as criminal actions. This is all because of the stated belief in Colorado statutes that a child under the age of 10 is incapable of forming criminal intent.

 

[Darly314]

As Tawny has stated, it is not allowed under Colorado law. This has been discussed at length on various threads here at WS. Essentially, any criminal act committed by a child under the age of 10 did not happen. They can't be charged, they can't be named as a suspect, in effect they don't exist as far as criminal actions. This is all because of the stated belief in Colorado statutes that a child under the age of 10 is incapable of forming criminal intent.

Which illustrates the problems with "exact age" statutes. Thank you for the information on Colorado law. I believe in a case by case analysis.

 

[DeDee]

"The charges for child abuse against John Ramsey read:

"On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey 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 of JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.

The charges for accessory to a crime against John Ramsey read:

On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of 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."

The indictments against Patsy Ramsey were identical, aside from the change in name."

http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/10/25/JonBenet-Ramsey-indictments-released/5271382725096/#ixzz34db4rDUG

On the Rs felony child abuse charge

"....feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health...."

John and Patsy claim they left their daughter in her bed around 10pm. How is that being "unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat"? How is that being "unlawful"?

On the accessory charge

"....knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree..."

Being an Accessory to First Degree Murder is not what Christians typically do.

 

[Theonly1]

Three minus two equals one.

 

[Theonly1]

Three minus two equals one. There were 3 people in the house. 2 the GJ thought shoud be indicted for above charges.

 

[Linda7NJ]

"The charges for child abuse against John Ramsey read:



"On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey 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 of JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.



The charges for accessory to a crime against John Ramsey read:



On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of 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."



The indictments against Patsy Ramsey were identical, aside from the change in name."



http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/10/25/JonBenet-Ramsey-indictments-released/5271382725096/#ixzz34db4rDUG



On the Rs felony child abuse charge



"....feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health...."



John and Patsy claim they left their daughter in her bed around 10pm. How is that being "unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat"? How is that being "unlawful"?



On the accessory charge



"....knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree..."



Being an Accessory to First Degree Murder is not what Christians typically do.

Hmmmm I'm quite certain prisons are chock full of Christians....and every other religion too.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think in theory yes.



If a DA was willing to prosecute under the idea that "an unprosecutable minor is also involved," yet these defendants played a role and can be prosecuted.



I don't think the law was designed as a "get out of jail" free card, but those high priced lawyers worked it to their advantage. Perhaps if BR had been looked at according to protocol, things would have been different. They ran a smoke and mirrors campaign that worked. Why admit to something if they can get a more desirable outcome by stonewalling? The snowball effect worked to great advantage. Why mess that up? There are hundreds if not thousands of inmates who claim they are innocent of the crimes they're incarcerated for.



What the GJ concluded can't be ignored, and DNA doesn't save their butts. It all circles back to the prior sexual contact.



That's not a random intruder, and it's not a known associate......they were all looked at...intensely.



Only a family member(s) as the perpetrator fits.



MOO, MOO, MOO.

Brilliant post!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lawstudent]

Which illustrates the problems with "exact age" statutes. Thank you for the information on Colorado law. I believe in a case by case analysis.

The exact age statutes aren't saying that kids can't commit atrocious acts, but just that they don't have the brain capacity to bring it to a criminal level. I know of a young child who wasn't excited about a new baby, and when she was about 5 told someone she had been debating stomping on his head but then decided not to. A 5 year old can decide to kill someone out of anger, but their appreciation of what they are doing is obviously not fully developed. That child has never had a violent incident and is now an adult. Should we do a case by case analysis of two year olds? At a certain point, a kid's brain is clearly not developed enough to have the necessary appreciation of their actions. Maybe it should be younger than 11, but it makes sense to have a cut off, which is why CO has one. Obviously, if the DA is thought to be unwilling to go after the Ramseys, even on a case by case basis they probably would have decided against it, if Burke was indeed suspected. Even if Burke did it and could not be prosecuted or named as a suspect, they still could have brought charges against the adults or brought it to some resolution. They just chose not to.

Question about the law, though - a child can't be named as a suspect - but people write that like they can't be named at all. Is that true? I mean, say a child burns down his house accidentally while playing with matches. He won't be prosecuted, but police would announce that a 6-year-old family member accidentally started the fire and it was ruled an accident. Wouldn't it be possible for them to say an investigation showed that there was an incident between JB and Burke, if that is in fact what happened, and that she had accidentally died and the family had covered it up in a panic? Naming someone as a suspect is a different matter altogether. Does the law prohibit any public mention whatsoever, because I can't see how that is possible.

 

[bettybaby00]

The exact age statutes aren't saying that kids can't commit atrocious acts, but just that they don't have the brain capacity to bring it to a criminal level. I know of a young child who wasn't excited about a new baby, and when she was about 5 told someone she had been debating stomping on his head but then decided not to. A 5 year old can decide to kill someone out of anger, but their appreciation of what they are doing is obviously not fully developed.

Friends of ours recounted the following many years ago. they have 2 sons about 18 months apart. One day when the older one was about 4, mom left them playing in the den while cleaning up the kitchen and when she retuned, the 4 year old was standing over his younger brother with a fireplace poker raised above his head ready to strike!!!! For the next several years she never left them alone unattended.

At a certain point, a kid's brain is clearly not developed enough to have the necessary appreciation of their actions. Maybe it should be younger than 11, but it makes sense to have a cut off, which is why CO has one. Obviously, if the DA is thought to be unwilling to go after the Ramseys, even on a case by case basis they probably would have decided against it, if Burke was indeed suspected. Even if Burke did it and could not be prosecuted or named as a suspect, they still could have brought charges against the adults or brought it to some resolution. They just chose not to.

This entire comment, especially the BBM.

Question about the law, though - a child can't be named as a suspect - but people write that like they can't be named at all. Is that true? I mean, say a child burns down his house accidentally while playing with matches. He won't be prosecuted, but police would announce that a 6-year-old family member accidentally started the fire and it was ruled an accident. Wouldn't it be possible for them to say an investigation showed that there was an incident between JB and Burke, if that is in fact what happened, and that she had accidentally died and the family had covered it up in a panic? Naming someone as a suspect is a different matter altogether. Does the law prohibit any public mention whatsoever, because I can't see how that is possible.

The statute has been posted in various threads many times over the years as it's very difficult to comprehend and accept that in this case it became the equivalent of a get out of jail free card for the entire family. (obviously dependent on your belief in BDI). As for the BBM, those high-priced defense lawyers certainly earned their keep!

I don't think the law was ever meant to be applied in such a manner, yet this case is very unique on many levels. When you have a DA who failed to uphold the most basic responsibilities of his oath out of fear, and cowardice the outcome isn't surprising.

A DA who turned his back not only on the men and women investigating the case, but also regarding justice for JonBenet by providing the defense with case file information, failing to obtain critical warrants and/or supeanas, negotining away LEs ability to effectively interview the parents, delaying the convening of a GJ, playing word games with the public and the media, and the pièce de résistance, failing to have the cojones to act upon the conclusions of the GJ.

I'm sure that if the family involved didn't have the power, privilege and money that the Ramseys enjoyed the case would have had a completely different outcome.

All IMO, MOO, etc., etc.

 

[lawstudent]

I don't think the law was ever meant to be applied in such a manner, yet this case is very unique on many levels. When you have a DA who failed to uphold the most basic responsibilities of his oath out of fear, and cowardice the outcome isn't surprising.

I think people are attributing everything to this law, when that's not the real issue. The law prohibits prosecution of that child, as that child is considered incapable of committing any crime, because crimes require a certain intent. For the same reason, the child can't be named as a suspect. It would be wrong for anyone to say a child was guilty of murder in such a situation, because a child of that age cannot commit murder, which is a criminal term. But just like we hear about a 5 year old shooting another 5 year old after finding a gun, I don't think anyone is forbidden from saying a child killed another child, probably without names, although it would be easy to figure out. Then you go ahead and prosecute the parents if they had any involvement, or decide you are not bringing charges.

The DA had the discretion not to prosecute or taken certain investigatory steps, and he didn't. That's entirely separate from the law against prosecuting children, if they even thought that was what happened. If that law had never existed, the DA could still have simply decided not to prosecute the child, especially if he was as biased as some people claim. I don't know what influenced the DA's decisions in this case, but I think people are way too stuck on the Colorado law, if Burke had any involvement whatsoever.