Has the case fizzled a bit?

[Bonnette]

So very, very sad for JB. I remember the funeral and BR smiling from ear to ear. Sickening. This was more than a dysfuntional home (close to a hellhole) I would say

He was smiling from ear to ear at Patsy's funeral, too. (So was John.)

 

[OpenMind4U]

Several agree, as do I, that there are some who've studied this case well enough to have a reasonable solution to the mysteries. Also agree that we can spend a lot of time in the forum studying each piece of the puzzle before we snap it into our resolutions, and each time we do, we might even see things a bit more clearly. As we do, it either serves to confirm or dispel an avenue of thought.

Unless some of us are able and willing to really DO something to form a Citizen's Task Committee to erode the barrier put up by LE in Colorado, Chrishope is right - we'll all be here with our own 'Jack the Ripper' case a hundred years from now.

As for me, the ONE shred of hope I see in all of this is that Kolar feels there is a way to prosecute this case to a resolve. He knows it's nearly a fruitless effort on his part - but HE did what he knew he had to do. He can't go it alone, pure and simple. You all know the power of the RST.

After Whaleshark posted his great method of examining the RN, and I was able to confirm to myself, that it could be demonstrated as such to a jury that the note was a collusion, my own puzzle pieces came together.

This is my theory, and I'm sticking to it: (I will only post the highlights, since my reasoning it too detailed)

• JR killed JB.
  
• Burke either came upon the scene or was at the scene when it happened.
  
• JR did 'damage control' on Burke, knowing his personality/psychological disorder would allow for him to keep Burke thoroughly managed forever.
  
• JR told Patsy Burke killed JB. Either Patsy also came upon the scene at one point or JR awakened her to bring her into the morass.
  
• Patsy helped JR stage the crime out of protection of Burke, which she believed until she died.
  
• JR should be charged for the murder of JonBenet.

If this does not agree with anyone else's theory, or with Kolar's Theory of Prosecution, so be it. But unless JR is charged and brought to trial, WE WILL NEVER KNOW THE FULL TRUTH ................
unless one of those midgets from the Foreign Faction really does come forth!

MM, I'm so jealous of you and DocG and others who know for sure WHO did WHAT to solve this case! I'm saying this seriously, without any sarcasm...because I'm the one who doesn't know for sure who did what and still 'searching' my mind for the reasonable explanation...

For me, the only 'sure' things in this case are:

- Ramsey family was highly disfunctional. Parents have 'crooked'/twisted priorities of life and in way of raising children; children were abandon without consideration of their psyhological and physical needs; the leaving environment was sick and messy with patological disorder;
- the elements of JBR killing have the same patological, insane 'OVER-THE-EDGE' delivery. The head blow with enourmose forse; the strangulation with the 'tortured' overtone; the sexual assult (acute and chronic) with patological intend and presentation;
- RN is the 'mirror' of the disturbed, confussed mind written by intellegent, well-educated but out of 'common sense' and reallity person; INSANITY should be the signature of this note.

I fully agree with you that Kolar wrote his book for one and only one reason: to shake-up an authorities to get moving into conclusion and closing this case. I wish I could help him to achive his goal! But how?...what I, the taxpayer USA citizen, can do to 'push' this case in right direction?

jmo

 

[midwest mama]

Open Mind - and others who would really would like to see justice for JB, if Kolar was to present a weekend seminar on his Theory of Prosecution to the public, with the intent of drafting a capable group of citizens who could help him create his own Spin Team, would you be willing to attend the seminar?? Costs would be all your own, including a fee for the seminar, which would probably have to be held in Colorado.

 

[OpenMind4U]

Open Mind - and others who would really would like to see justice for JB, if Kolar was to present a weekend seminar on his Theory of Prosecution to the public, with the intent of drafting a capable group of citizens who could help him create his own Spin Team, would you be willing to attend the seminar?? Costs would be all your own, including a fee for the seminar, which would probably have to be held in Colorado.

Yes, I would!!!!

 

[Bonnette]

Open Mind - and others who would really would like to see justice for JB, if Kolar was to present a weekend seminar on his Theory of Prosecution to the public, with the intent of drafting a capable group of citizens who could help him create his own Spin Team, would you be willing to attend the seminar?? Costs would be all your own, including a fee for the seminar, which would probably have to be held in Colorado.

MM, I think that would be professional suicide for Kolar, who is still the sheriff of Telluride.

Kolar was not comfortable stating his theory of the case in his book, so the odds of his being willing to discuss it in a public seminar (however supportive and enthusiastic the audience) are slim-to-none. In addition, the costs of such a seminar - renting a venue, lodging and food charges, travel fees - would be staggering for most people, including Kolar. I certainly couldn't swing it, and I live in Colorado!

 

[UKGuy]

wonderllama,

Has the case fizzled a bit?

Well slightly. People have read, digested and debated Kolar's book, so interest levels recede a little.

We will one day know who killed JonBenet and why. There might even be a court case or a very good reason for a lack of one?

As time moves on more people will emerge with testimony and stories to tell. If Kolar can self-publish, then so can others.

Expect a new documentary on the back of Kolar's book, probably a shockumentary, e.g. BDI.

I would just love to see Fleet White do an open interview, if there is to be no court-case for all the arcane legal reasons, the FW has nothing to lose with an honest interview.


.

 

[wonderllama]

Thanks for all the replies.
I'm going with the theory that the reason this case has, in my mind, fizzled a bit, is because everyone is too damned scared to put their theory out there for the public to see through fear of being sued off the face of the Earth!

Thomas had that problem, Kolar went to great lengths to avoid that problem....but that doesn't resolve the murder.

Have you noticed how there's still a large number of people out there who DO believe the IDI theory? And this is in spite of the 'mountain' of evidence linking the family to the crime.

So, more of the same in a book isn't really going to cut it.
You don't sway the public via vague suggestions or reasons why the intruder didn't exist.
You need to come right on out and say it, then back it up with the evidence that is already there.

Sure, someone is going to say "if it was that easy, they'd have done it already"...but that's not quite the point. We've already established that they are trigger happy with the threats of legal action, but didn't Dave point out that in order to be charged/prosecuted you would need to go before the courts and have the accusations tested...which would include having some of the players in court?

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but I think the aim of a good defence lawyer is to scare people into non-action, and that's working. Perhaps it's time to lobby a Bill Gates type person to back someone who is prepared to speak the truth.

After all, if money has kept this case out of court, surely money can drag it in!

 

[OpenMind4U]

Thanks for all the replies.
I'm going with the theory that the reason this case has, in my mind, fizzled a bit, is because everyone is too damned scared to put their theory out there for the public to see through fear of being sued off the face of the Earth!

Thomas had that problem, Kolar went to great lengths to avoid that problem....but that doesn't resolve the murder.

Have you noticed how there's still a large number of people out there who DO believe the IDI theory? And this is in spite of the 'mountain' of evidence linking the family to the crime.

So, more of the same in a book isn't really going to cut it.
You don't sway the public via vague suggestions or reasons why the intruder didn't exist.
You need to come right on out and say it, then back it up with the evidence that is already there.

Sure, someone is going to say "if it was that easy, they'd have done it already"...but that's not quite the point. We've already established that they are trigger happy with the threats of legal action, but didn't Dave point out that in order to be charged/prosecuted you would need to go before the courts and have the accusations tested...which would include having some of the players in court?

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but I think the aim of a good defence lawyer is to scare people into non-action, and that's working. Perhaps it's time to lobby a Bill Gates type person to back someone who is prepared to speak the truth.

After all, if money has kept this case out of court, surely money can drag it in!

I understand and share your frastration. However, to solve this case it should be started by exposing the 'obstraction of justice' done by Hunter and Lucy. JMO and strong believes!...

According to ST, FBI was thinking to do exectly that in 1998 against Hunter...but had no 'balls' (or authority?) to finalize it. Therefore, I would strongly suggest to go after quilty authorities in charge who made unspeakable mistakes first...expose them, nullify and reverse their prior orders: take-off the clearance of Ramsey's, cancel the 'island of privacy' priviledges, get as much as possible attention from the media in the process...By taking this road (to lobby by powerfull politician or/and other dedicated person with power/money), the attention to JBR case will by back on the table big time!!!!

jmo

 

[DeeDee249]

JR will never be charged in the crime. Patsy's fibers on the tape, entwined in the cord place her WITH JB at the time of the crime. JR's fibers in the panties place him there as well. There is no way to prove who did what, and as Patsy is dead, there is no way to prove JR did it. Patsy's fibers can't be explained innocently. She was there, regardless of whether she did it, he did it or their son(s) did it. Reasonable doubt.

I am not sure whether this differs from state to state, but maybe someone here will know...I recall several murder cases over the years where multiple people were charged. Only ONE person may have committed the actual murder (fired the gun, bashed the skull, pushed someone over a cliff, etc.) but ALL the people who were participating and/or present during it were ALL charged with murder. When you're "in for a penny, you're in for a pound" kind of thing. It didn't matter that not all of them pulled that trigger, etc. There were ALL responsible.
So WHY didn't that apply in this case? Why should it have to be proved definitely which parent did what? Couldn't they BOTH be charged? They were BOTH involved in some way, fiber evidence places them there with JB's body. Even of they didn't kill her, they covered up the crime. Why couldn't the DA charge them with that at the very least? Well, the problem with my last sentence would certainly be that if they are charged with covering up a crime that someone else committed...you'd have to say (or infer) who that "someone else" was, and obviously it could only have been their son(s). So that ends that.

 

[UKGuy]

JR will never be charged in the crime. Patsy's fibers on the tape, entwined in the cord place her WITH JB at the time of the crime. JR's fibers in the panties place him there as well. There is no way to prove who did what, and as Patsy is dead, there is no way to prove JR did it. Patsy's fibers can't be explained innocently. She was there, regardless of whether she did it, he did it or their son(s) did it. Reasonable doubt.

I am not sure whether this differs from state to state, but maybe someone here will know...I recall several murder cases over the years where multiple people were charged. Only ONE person may have committed the actual murder (fired the gun, bashed the skull, pushed someone over a cliff, etc.) but ALL the people who were participating and/or present during it were ALL charged with murder. When you're "in for a penny, you're in for a pound" kind of thing. It didn't matter that not all of them pulled that trigger, etc. There were ALL responsible.
So WHY didn't that apply in this case? Why should it have to be proved definitely which parent did what? Couldn't they BOTH be charged? They were BOTH involved in some way, fiber evidence places them there with JB's body. Even of they didn't kill her, they covered up the crime. Why couldn't the DA charge them with that at the very least? Well, the problem with my last sentence would certainly be that if they are charged with covering up a crime that someone else committed...you'd have to say (or infer) who that "someone else" was, and obviously it could only have been their son(s). So that ends that.

DeeDee249,
Conspiracy to commit homicide in the nth degree might do?

The R's can be charged and brought to court. A conviction is another matter.

A court case is the last the R's want, a public airing of their laundry in public would not look pretty!


.

 

[BOESP]

Kolar gets less and less straightforward as the book progresses, and is almost coy by the end of it. But my perception all the way through was that he thought BDI, with Patsy covering for him (hence her suspicious behavior from the get-go). I never got the impression from the book that Kolar thought Patsy actually killed JB - but for legal reasons, he couldn't actually come out and say, one way or the other. Steve Thomas did declare Patsy the killer, and he was practically eaten alive by Team Ramsey.

Having read both books, I find Steve Thomas's more beneficial. Thomas either thought Patsy was guilty based on his analysis of the evidence or he used the book hopefully to prod Patsy into confessing what she knew (whatever that might have been).

The Ramseys and the DA's office spent an awful lot of taxpayer money to cover up a BDI (if that, indeed, was their purpose) since, according to what I've read here, Burke could not be held accountable anyway. That seems a bit far-fetched to me. Patsy acted guilty, in my view, from the very beginning. John acted more and more guilty as time went on.

Regardless, taxpayer money knowingly went down the tube if it was a BDI or any RDI.

 

[OpenMind4U]

Having read both books, I find Steve Thomas's more beneficial. Thomas either thought Patsy was guilty based on his analysis of the evidence or he used the book hopefully to prod Patsy into confessing what she knew (whatever that might have been).

The Ramseys and the DA's office spent an awful lot of taxpayer money to cover up a BDI (if that, indeed, was their purpose) since, according to what I've read here, Burke could not be held accountable anyway. That seems a bit far-fetched to me. Patsy acted guilty, in my view, from the very beginning. John acted more and more guilty as time went on.

Regardless, taxpayer money knowingly went down the tube if it was a BDI or any RDI.

IMO, DA's UNLAWFULLY spend a lot of taxpayer money to cover up Ramsey's, period. And it's shame that DA wasn't investigated/prosecuted for it...not in 1998 and still not today!!! :banghead:

 

[SapphireSteel]

JR will never be charged in the crime. Patsy's fibers on the tape, entwined in the cord place her WITH JB at the time of the crime. JR's fibers in the panties place him there as well. There is no way to prove who did what, and as Patsy is dead, there is no way to prove JR did it. Patsy's fibers can't be explained innocently. She was there, regardless of whether she did it, he did it or their son(s) did it. Reasonable doubt.

I am not sure whether this differs from state to state, but maybe someone here will know...I recall several murder cases over the years where multiple people were charged. Only ONE person may have committed the actual murder (fired the gun, bashed the skull, pushed someone over a cliff, etc.) but ALL the people who were participating and/or present during it were ALL charged with murder. When you're "in for a penny, you're in for a pound" kind of thing. It didn't matter that not all of them pulled that trigger, etc. There were ALL responsible.
So WHY didn't that apply in this case? Why should it have to be proved definitely which parent did what? Couldn't they BOTH be charged? They were BOTH involved in some way, fiber evidence places them there with JB's body. Even of they didn't kill her, they covered up the crime. Why couldn't the DA charge them with that at the very least? Well, the problem with my last sentence would certainly be that if they are charged with covering up a crime that someone else committed...you'd have to say (or infer) who that "someone else" was, and obviously it could only have been their son(s). So that ends that.

:goodpost:

Because that would take a DA with a political death wish.

The problem with the original investigation is the Ramseys steered it from day one, and were allowed to because they had money.

If you have money, you generally do not get prosecuted in the USA. You have influence and power. Once that particular snowball starts rolling, as it did in this case with an inept initial investigation, more and more people become compromised and the cover up begins to spread.

A lot of mud would be splattered if this was ever dragged out into the light by someone brave or foolhardy enough to do it. People who still currently hold public office may well face unpleasant consequences due to decisions made years ago.

It's really up to the people of Colorado to demand answers of their current government as no one will reopen this mess voluntarily. People power is the only thing that will work.

Unfortunately most people are heartily tired of the name Ramsey, and would also just like to forget it ever happened.

I believe history will be the judge. It already is, with most people convinced RDI despite the fact they were never charged. Karma has already taken care of the main player in a lot of people's opinions, including perhaps those closest to the crime, so maybe there has been some sort of justice.

Poor Jonbenet.
:rose:

 

[Bonnette]

Having read both books, I find Steve Thomas's more beneficial. Thomas either thought Patsy was guilty based on his analysis of the evidence or he used the book hopefully to prod Patsy into confessing what she knew (whatever that might have been).

I agree. I've read Kolar's book twice and Thomas' four times...pound for pound (so to speak), Thomas' substance seems weightier; Kolar delivers some new pieces of information, but overall he doesn't add much to Thomas' earlier contributions. A lot of the credit for that must also go to Thomas' coauthor, who was adept at cogent organization, presented in a conversational - but still professional - style.

 

[Bonnette]

It's really up to the people of Colorado to demand answers of their current government as no one will reopen this mess voluntarily. People power is the only thing that will work.

Unfortunately most people are heartily tired of the name Ramsey, and would also just like to forget it ever happened.

I believe history will be the judge. It already is, with most people convinced RDI despite the fact they were never charged. Karma has already taken care of the main player in a lot of people's opinions, including perhaps those closest to the crime, so maybe there has been some sort of justice.

Poor Jonbenet.
:rose:

Right. And in addition to most people (typically those who weren't absorbed by the case early on) being tired of the Ramsey name, citizens today are bedeviled by all manner of financial, social and political woes that were not predominant in 1996 - our focus was narrower: it could afford to be, which makes what the Ramseys got away with then all the more maddening. In 2012, there simply isn't enough money, passion or influence to go around. People and energy are spread thin.

Love your last paragraph. There's a lot of truth to what you say, IMO.

 

[cynic]

I am not sure whether this differs from state to state, but maybe someone here will know...I recall several murder cases over the years where multiple people were charged. Only ONE person may have committed the actual murder (fired the gun, bashed the skull, pushed someone over a cliff, etc.) but ALL the people who were participating and/or present during it were ALL charged with murder. When you're "in for a penny, you're in for a pound" kind of thing. It didn't matter that not all of them pulled that trigger, etc. There were ALL responsible.
So WHY didn't that apply in this case? Why should it have to be proved definitely which parent did what? Couldn't they BOTH be charged? They were BOTH involved in some way, fiber evidence places them there with JB's body. Even of they didn't kill her, they covered up the crime. Why couldn't the DA charge them with that at the very least? Well, the problem with my last sentence would certainly be that if they are charged with covering up a crime that someone else committed...you'd have to say (or infer) who that "someone else" was, and obviously it could only have been their son(s). So that ends that.

I posted regarding this over at FFJ, I’ll recap here.

Filing charges under the child abuse statute may have worked in the Ramsey case, however, I also believe that felony murder has a greater degree of built in flexibility for a successful prosecution in a case where the “principal actor” is unclear or there is a chance that the accused parties will blame each other.
It’s a commonly held view that one of the most compelling reasons why the Ramseys were not prosecuted is because it would be too difficult to prove which of the parents was responsible for ending JonBenet’s life, or similarly that the parents would blame each other and, consequently, both would walk free.
Wendy Murphy, Vincent Bugliosi and Bill Ritter have all echoed that sentiment.

Wendy Murphy: It‘s why the JonBenet Ramsey parents are both free, because you can‘t try the father, he‘ll blame the mother. You can‘t try the mother, she‘ll—so they both walk.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9119000/...direct-august/

Bugliosi continued, “If we come to the conclusion that JonBenét was not murdered by an intruder, the inevitable question presents itself: which [parent] did it? A prosecutor can’t argue to a jury, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence is very clear here that either Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey committed this murder and the other one covered it up…’ There is no case to take to the jury unless [the DA] could prove beyond a reasonable doubt which one [of them] did it.” Later in the show, Bugliosi told Vargas, “Even if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note, that doesn’t mean that she committed the murder.”
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, page 737

Of course, not everyone agrees. One of the BPD’s “dream team,” Dan Hoffman, thought that prosecuting under the felony murder statute would have worked. Beckner also agreed with that view. (And, as I posted previously, Darnay Hoffman concurred.)

Even after DeMuth’s recital of our shortcomings, I felt we held a decent hand. Commander Beckner told me later that he felt we had gone far beyond showing probable cause. “I think she [Patsy Ramsey] did it,” he said. “We should just charge them both with felony murder and aiding and abetting.”
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 335

Daniel Hoffman, one of the lawyers (and former dean of the University of Denver Law School) working pro bono for the police, remarked to Denver DA Bill Ritter during an earlier break, “Looks like they got it.”
“Got what?” Ritter countered.
“Felony murder,” Hoffman said confidently.Ritter didn’t see it. The felony-murder statute in Colorado allowed for a murder conviction even when the intent to kill couldn’t be proved, if it could be shown that the death occurred during the commission of a felony such as arson, burglary, or sexual assault. Ritter knew that none of those secondary felonies could be proved in the Ramsey case—not even sexual assault. If JonBenét was penetrated after death, it wasn’t a sexual assault; it was abuse of a corpse. But that wasn’t Ritter’s main reservation about Hoffman’s suggestion. Even if the evidence someday proved that a sexual assault had preceded the child’s death, the prosecution would still have to prove which parent was responsible for the assault. That left prosecutors with the troubling question of which parent—if indeed either parent—had knowingly caused the child’s death. Until investigators could identify each parent’s individual actions, two suspects meant no suspects.
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, pages 670 - 671

So, who’s right?
I think that the Colorado felony murder statute has enough latitude to handle the issues of the Ramsey case.

In the state of Colorado, the common law felony murder rule has been codified in Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-3-102. The statute classifies a homicide as first degree murder when committed during one of these predicate felonies:
Committing or attempting to commit arson, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault, or a class 3 felony sexual assault on a child
Or if in the course of one of these crimes or the immediate escape from it, anyone causes the death of a person other than one of the participants

Colorado (Col. Rev. Stat. Sec. 18-3-102)
It is first degree murder for someone, acting alone or with others to (1) commit or attempt to commit arson, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault, class 3 felony sexual assault on a child, or escape and (2) in the course of or in furtherance of the crime or in immediate flight from it, anyone causes the death of a person other than one of the participants. The crime is subject to the death penalty or life in prison.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-r-0087.htm

Felony Murder Doctrine
A rule of criminal statutes that any death that occurs during the commission of a felony is first-degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder. A typical example is a robbery involving more than one criminal, in which one of them shoots, beats to death or runs over a store clerk, killing the clerk. Even if the death were accidental, all of the participants can be found guilty of felony murder, including those who did no harm, had no gun, and/or did not intend to hurt anyone. In a bizarre situation, if one of the hold-up men or women is killed, his/her fellow robbers can be charged with murder.
http://www.criminal-lawyer-colorado....sglossary.html

The second way that the crime of murder can be charged under Colorado law is “felony murder”. Felony murder is actually another way that a person can commit the crime of 1st degree murder without the elements of “deliberation” (or premeditation) or “intent”. Felony murder occurs when a person commits certain felony crimes specified by Colorado statute (such as sexual assault, burglary, robbery, arson, or kidnapping) and in the course or furtherance of that crime, another person (who is not involved in the commission of the underlying crime) dies. Here, the crime of murder does not require deliberation or intent to cause the death of a person. In fact, the actor may only have the intent of the underlying felony that he or she is committing and still be charged with murder when a person dies during the course of the commission of that underlying felony. Possible sentencing for felony murder is the same as described above for 1st degree murder.
http://frankfurt-trani.com/criminal-...nse-attorneys/

If we look at the above, it’s clear that the only possible underlying felony that fits the evidence in the Ramsey case would be class 3 sexual assault on a child. I’ve outlined the particulars of that felony below:

Sexual assault on a child. 18-3-405.
(1) Any actor who knowingly subjects another not his or her spouse to any sexual contact commits sexual assault on a child if the victim is less than fifteen years of age and the actor is at least four years older than the victim.
(2) Sexual assault on a child is a class 4 felony, but it is a class 3 felony if:
(a) The actor applies force against the victim in order to accomplish or facilitate sexual contact; or
(b) The actor, in order to accomplish or facilitate sexual contact, threatens imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain, or kidnapping against the victim or another person, and the victim believes that the actor has the present ability to execute the threat; or
(c) The actor, in order to accomplish or facilitate sexual contact, threatens retaliation by causing in the future the death or serious bodily injury, extreme pain, or kidnapping against the victim or another person, and the victim believes that the actor will execute the threat; or
(d) The actor commits the offense as a part of a pattern of sexual abuse as described in subsection (1) of this section. No specific date or time must be alleged for the pattern of sexual abuse; except that the acts constituting the pattern of sexual abuse must have been committed within ten years prior to the offense charged in the information or indictment. The offense charged in the information or indictment shall constitute one of the incidents of sexual contact involving a child necessary to form a pattern of sexual abuse as defined in section 18-3-401 (2.5).

Therefore, I believe that class 3 sexual assault on a child could be the underlying felony on route to a felony murder charge if a pattern of sexual abuse could be proven.
(“Pattern,” by the way is defined as two or more incidents.)

"In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."
Such findings would lead an investigator to conclude that the person who inflicted the abuse was someone with frequent or unquestioned access to the child, and that limited the amount of suspects.
Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation p. 253


It’s possible that there was only one incident of sexual contact that night solely for the purpose of concealing chronic sexual abuse or perhaps a single incident solely for the purpose of sexual abuse. It’s also possible that there were two incidents of sexual contact that night, a sexual assault/molestation followed by her death, followed by further sexual contact as part of the staging to cover a history of ongoing sexual abuse.
To successfully prosecute under the felony murder statute, the prosecution would probably leave it as an open ended situation, merely showing that there was evidence of acute trauma as a result of sexual assault, (in addition to the evidence for chronic abuse.)
Ritter was wrong in his assertion that it would have to be proven that JonBenet was alive when she was violated.

The following appeal case, although not from Colorado, does have a similarly worded felony murder statute and shows that the prosecution does not need to prove the victim was alive during the commission of the underlying felony. It shows the tremendous flexibility inherent in the felony murder statute.

(Gutierrez’ appeal was denied)
PEOPLE v. GUTIERREZ
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicholas GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1-07-2516, June 30, 2010
After a jury trial, defendant, Nicholas Gutierrez, was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault, burglary, and concealment of a homicidal death. He was sentenced to natural life in prison. On appeal, defendant argues that: (1) his sentence is excessive; (2) his conviction for aggravated criminal sexual assault should be reversed because the State failed to prove that the victim was alive at the time of the sexual assault
…
Defendant argues that the crime of sexual assault requires that the State prove that the victim was alive at the time of the sexual acts. He contends that his conviction for aggravated criminal sexual assault must be reversed because the State failed to prove that Mary was alive at the time he assaulted her.
…
People v. Henarix, 250 Ill.App.3d 88 (1993), refutes defendant's contention. In Hendrix, the body of the 71-year-old victim was found 30 to 48 hours after death, and the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault, and burglary. On appeal, the defendant argued that he was not proven guilty of aggravated criminal sexual assault because the medical examiner could not conclusively establish that any sexual assault occurred before death. This court concluded that we will not draw a bright line which would require the State in all similar cases to establish the precise time of death in order to prove a sexual assault upon a murder victim. Hendrix, 250 Ill.App.3d at 103. Accordingly, the court concluded that the State proved defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hendrix, 250 Ill.App.3d at 103.
…
We note, however, that a different panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed with Hutner. People v. Diefenbach, No. 176489, slip op at 6 n.1 (Mich.App. August 20, 1996). Further, Holt was superseded by Wisconsin's sexual assault statute (Wis.Stat. § 940.225(7) (2005)), which provides, “This section applies regardless of whether a victim is dead or alive at the time of sexual contact or sexual intercourse.” Similarly, Pennsylvania's “involuntary deviate sexual intercourse” statute now provides that the term “forcible compulsion” includes “compulsion resulting in another person's death, whether the death occurred before, during or after the sexual intercourse.” Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 3123(e) (2009 Supp.).
…
…It was sufficient that the State proved the elements of the crimes and the accompanying felonies were part of the “same criminal episode.” Thomas, 137 Ill.2d at 534.
Thomas declined to adopt the California Supreme Court's reasoning in People v. Morris, 46 Cal.3d 1, 756 P.2d 843, 249 Cal.Rptr. 119 (1988), and People v. Green, 27 Cal.3d 1, 609 P.2d 468, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1 (1980), which determined that its capital punishment statute is inapplicable when the felony that accompanies the murder is “ ‘merely incidental to the murder.’ “ Thomas, 137 Ill.2d at 534, quoting Green, 27 Cal.3d at 61, 609 P.2d at 505, 164 Cal.Rptr. at 38. Thomas found that the language of the California statute is different from Illinois's statutes because it permits the imposition of the death penalty when the jury concluded that the defendant committed murder “ ‘during the commission or attempted commission of” several enumerated felonies. Thomas, 137 Ill.2d at 534, quoting Green, 27 Cal.3d at 59, 609 P.2d at 504, 164 Cal.Rptr. at 37. This language contemplates a shorter time frame than does the “ ‘in the course of” language found in the Illinois statute. Thomas, 137 Ill.2d at 535, quoting Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 9-l(b)(6). “That is, we think that the Illinois statute recognizes that the crime of murder is not necessarily complete when the victim's heart stops beating, but rather the crime continues through the time that the perpetrator conceals the crime and flees the scene.” Thomas, 137 Ill.2d at 535. “The statute imparts no significance to the precise timing of the * * * various felonies defendant commits.” Thomas, 137 Ill.2d at 535. Accordingly, the court concluded that a defendant is eligible for the death penalty if he commits murder and one of the specifically enumerated felonies either simultaneously or as part of the same criminal episode. Thomas, 137 Ill.2d at 535.
Here, the defendant committed both murder and aggravated criminal sexual assault, and these crimes occurred “essentially simultaneously. ” It was sufficient that the State proved the elements of the crimes were part of the “same criminal episode.” Thomas, 137 Ill.2d at 534. “To parse the crimes out into bounded acts would contradict the reality that these crimes were intertwined both temporally and functionally.” Sample, 326 Ill.App.3d at 928.
…
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm defendant's convictions and sentence.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-...s/1530818.html

Prosecuting Patsy would have been quite feasible.
I really do believe that the ransom note evidence would have played very well in front of a jury, devastating IMO.
The beauty of the felony murder statute is that the prosecution need not prove which of the Ramseys definitively caused the skull fracture or wrapped the ligature around JonBenet’s neck.
If the jury would agree that Patsy wrote the note, her involvement would make her liable for the crime of felony murder.

Even Hofstrom seemed to agree that the combination of chronic sexual abuse and the ransom note was the key.
“If experts could determine prior vaginal abuse, and we could get an expert to identify the author of the ransom note, then the investigation would have reached a “turning point” toward prosecution."
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, page 244

What’s frustrating is that the DA was too much of a coward to try. Good things can happen for the prosecution when people are arrested and suddenly face the harsh reality of a jail cell.
BTW, I checked out Darnay’s statement that bail would not be an option if the Ramseys were charged with felony murder, and it appears to be true.

FAQ: Colorado’s Bail Bonding System - Typical Bond Schedules and Other Information - Pretrial Release Services
In the United States, an individual accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. Most defendants have the right to be released on bail that is not excessive rather than remaining in jail pending the outcome of a trial.
However, some serious crimes are not bailable offenses under Colorado law, including murder, kidnapping, and treason. In addition, persons arrested for a violent crime who have been previously convicted of a violent crime, or who are out on bail for a violent offense, are also not eligible for bail.
http://colorado-domestic-violence-la...-Laws.html?P=Y

John and Patsy behind bars, how long would the solidarity last?

Originally my focus would have been on John or Patsy as the perpetrator of sexual assault on JonBenet.
If the focus is to be on Burke, as per Kolar’s theory, then it would probably be better to use kidnapping as the underlying felony.
In order to go down that road, evidence would need to be provided to show that at some point JonBenet was moved from one point in the home to another, as a consequence of the use of force.
If that could be shown then John could be charged for his role in the cover-up

Colorado laws classify kidnapping into two categories; first degree kidnapping and second degree kidnapping. According to C.R.S. 18-3-301, a person commits first degree kidnapping if s/he carries any person from one place to another using force; or persuades another to move; or imprisons or secrets any person with the intent to force the victim to make any concession or give up anything of value in order to secure release.

A person committing first degree kidnapping is guilty of a class 1 felony if the victim suffered bodily injury. However a person convicted of first degree kidnapping shall not be awarded death penalty if the person kidnapped was liberated alive prior to the conviction of the defendant.

If the victim was liberated unharmed, prior to the conviction of person who kidnapped, then the offender is guilty of a class 2 felony.

According to C.R.S. 18-3-302 a person commits second degree kidnapping when s/he seizes and carries any person from one place to another, without his consent and without lawful authority; or s/he takes away any child below 18 years with intent to keep or conceal the child from his or her parent or guardian or with intent to sell, trade, or barter such child for consideration.

Second degree kidnapping is a class 2 felony if the person kidnapped is a victim of a sexual offense or robbery.

Second degree kidnapping is a class 3 felony if the kidnapping is accomplished with intent to sell, trade, or barter the victim for consideration; or by the use of a deadly weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon; or by the perpetrator representing verbally or otherwise that s/he is armed with a deadly weapon.

All other kidnappings are class 4 felonies.

The seizing and carrying of a person from one place to another is the basic asportation element of kidnapping. The elements of Kidnapping in the Second Degree are :
■Knowingly
■Forcibly or otherwise
■Seizing and carrying any person from one place to another
■Without her consent, and
■Without lawful justification.

 

[UKGuy]

cynic,
Interesting read. If I interpret that correctly then all the R's, except BR could have been charged with Felony Murder with the sexual assault and kidnapping as the felony crimes?

The second way that the crime of murder can be charged under Colorado law is “felony murder”. Felony murder is actually another way that a person can commit the crime of 1st degree murder without the elements of “deliberation” (or premeditation) or “intent”. Felony murder occurs when a person commits certain felony crimes specified by Colorado statute (such as sexual assault, burglary, robbery, arson, or kidnapping) and in the course or furtherance of that crime, another person (who is not involved in the commission of the underlying crime) dies. Here, the crime of murder does not require deliberation or intent to cause the death of a person. In fact, the actor may only have the intent of the underlying felony that he or she is committing and still be charged with murder when a person dies during the course of the commission of that underlying felony. Possible sentencing for felony murder is the same as described above for 1st degree murder.

Which must mean JR could still be charged? Would Burke be called as a prosecution or defense witness?


.

 

[midwest mama]

CYNIC - Your post #36 is spectacular! :great:

YOU ARE MY HERO:loveyou:

:gthanks:

 

[OpenMind4U]

I posted regarding this over at FFJ, I’ll recap here.

respectfully skip


Therefore, I believe that class 3 sexual assault on a child could be the underlying felony on route to a felony murder charge if a pattern of sexual abuse could be proven.

It’s possible that there was only one incident of sexual contact that night solely for the purpose of concealing chronic sexual abuse or perhaps a single incident solely for the purpose of sexual abuse. It’s also possible that there were two incidents of sexual contact that night, a sexual assault/molestation followed by her death, followed by further sexual contact as part of the staging to cover a history of ongoing sexual abuse.

To successfully prosecute under the felony murder statute, the prosecution would probably leave it as an open ended situation, merely showing that there was evidence of acute trauma as a result of sexual assault, (in addition to the evidence for chronic abuse.)
Ritter was wrong in his assertion that it would have to be proven that JonBenet was alive when she was violated.


Originally my focus would have been on John or Patsy as the perpetrator of sexual assault on JonBenet.

If the focus is to be on Burke, as per Kolar’s theory, then it would probably be better to use kidnapping as the underlying felony.
In order to go down that road, evidence would need to be provided to show that at some point JonBenet was moved from one point in the home to another, as a consequence of the use of force.
If that could be shown then John could be charged for his role in the cover-up

Colorado laws classify kidnapping into two categories; first degree kidnapping and second degree kidnapping. According to C.R.S. 18-3-301, a person commits first degree kidnapping if s/he carries any person from one place to another using force; or persuades another to move; or imprisons or secrets any person with the intent to force the victim to make any concession or give up anything of value in order to secure release.

A person committing first degree kidnapping is guilty of a class 1 felony if the victim suffered bodily injury. However a person convicted of first degree kidnapping shall not be awarded death penalty if the person kidnapped was liberated alive prior to the conviction of the defendant.

If the victim was liberated unharmed, prior to the conviction of person who kidnapped, then the offender is guilty of a class 2 felony.

Second degree kidnapping is a class 2 felony if the person kidnapped is a victim of a sexual offense or robbery.

WOW...Thank you, cynic!...So, at the minimum, we could HOPE for JR: second degree kidnapping (class 2 felony)....I'll take it!!!.....

 

[OpenMind4U]

cynic,

Do you think Kolar knows about possibility of charging JR with 'kidnapping felony'?? Now, I understand why he used word 'kidnapping' and emphasized it's meaning during his interview with Boyler!!!!

WOW!!!!!!! Thank you again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....very-very much!