Solved or not?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by madeleine, Jun 21, 2013.

?

If police would have interviewed the Ramsey's separately one day one/case solved ?

  1. Yes,they would have solved it pretty quickly

    48 vote(s)
    70.6%
  2. No

    20 vote(s)
    29.4%
  1. tezi

    tezi Member of Websleuths since 2000.

    Messages:
    5,434
    Likes Received:
    493
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Darlene733510, I do think that people are blaming the blame game again, and the internet chatter is getting out of control again...I am so sick and tired of people dragging the Whites into this as suspects...

    JMO
     


  2. Nom de plume

    Nom de plume Member

    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Good catch Tezi! I find the following statement a little strange. Why bring up NK at this point? That story died years ago.

    As I recall, NK never accused FW of murdering JB. She pointed out the similarities between her own abuse and the way JB was found. She did accuse FW I & II of sexual abuse though, and had plenty of evidence that the family was tied to her own, but obviously no direct proof of the abuse. She also talked about an "Uncle Johnny" that abused her as well.

    What's even more interesting was her account of being tied up to closet poles, etc. during her abuse. Also her claim that she was strangled to the point of unconsciousness during the abuse in order to create a physical reaction in her that simulated an orgasm in an adult woman.

    Even more interesting is the fact that she and her therapist disappeared, never to be seen again, on the way to the airport. She was going into hiding after repeated threats to her life.

    ETA: I am not accusing FW of killing JB. Never thought he did, but I do think there's a lot more to the man than meets the "public eye". I also believe he knows more than he's ever said, but for some reason, stays quiet.
     
  3. tezi

    tezi Member of Websleuths since 2000.

    Messages:
    5,434
    Likes Received:
    493
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I do agree the statement is strange. However, I think he said that because of the internet chatter again.

    JMO
     
  4. midwest mama

    midwest mama Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,303
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    BBM

    OK, so this makes me wonder why they didn't come up with a charge of Felony Murder instead of Child Abuse Resulting in Death?
     
  5. midwest mama

    midwest mama Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,303
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Agreed. For once it would have been OK to see a request of JR's (the same as your hope, SD) be honored by the powers that be.
     
  6. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I'm not sure if this is legally correct or not (I'll try to look it up later if no one else remembers), but it seems I remember that this was tied to the Fifth Amendment. Just like an accused person can't be forced to testify, neither can they be compelled to answer to a GJ if they are the focus of that GJ investigation. Way back when this was going on, it seems like Hunter denied that anyone was the focus of the GJ. There was speculation that he made that statement so that if the GJ wanted, they would be able to subpoena the adult Ramseys. But then they never did. They called nearly every other member of the family (including a minor, because he could not be charged), but not Patsy or John. Had they been called, they would have been asked questions similar to a trial -- not like a police interrogation. So would it have served any purpose to call them knowing they would not get truthful answers to their questions? (I don't think so.) And then there's the question of how much information would have to be shared with them if they were called.
     
  7. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Releasing only the GJ's True Bill charges leaves its decisions open to a lot of speculation. Most posters here know to be careful about who they name as a possible suspect -- even when they imply someone outside the family. But posters at other sites are not as cautious. So when they suggest that the GJ's finding means that the Ramseys were "standing around and letting someone else kill JBR", guess whose name always gets brought up?

    I'm glad the BPD decided to release this statement.
     
  8. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    IMO because Hunter never wanted to have to go to trial. He didn't want to convene a GJ in the first place. It was forced on him to keep the state's governor from appointing a Special Prosecutor. Hunter never wanted (and didn't expect) the GJ to ever issue a charge. When they did, he had to sweep it under the rug. He let the Statute of Limitations expire on the only charges that could have ever been brought against the Ramseys.
     
  9. Mama2JML

    Mama2JML New Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Evidence to charge the Ramseys with murder was, & is, lacking. This article explains the perspective of a few jurors:

    http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_22446410
     
  10. Venom

    Venom Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thanks otg.
     
  11. BBB167893

    BBB167893 Former Member

    Messages:
    13,259
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Does anyone ELSE find the wording in Beckner's letter to be a jab at Mary Lacy?
     
  12. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I've read over some of the CO statutes regarding GJ proceedings, and I tried to read some of a book titled Grand Jury Practice, by Howard W. Goldstein (until my eyes started glazing over). The most applicable CO statute seems to be C.R.S. 16-5-204 (Witnesses before a grand jury - procedure), in addition to the other statutes that deal with the individual criminal procedures. I couldn’t find anywhere that it refers to someone being the “focus” of a GJ investigation, unless the person has already been arrested and charged with a crime, where the powers of a GJ are used to gather fact in support of the existing charges. However, when a person (any person) is summoned to testify before a GJ, they have certain rights which the GJ may not have wanted to grant them by their subpoena. I’ll post the entire portion of the section that addresses this with the pertinent portions bolded:
    TITLE 16. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
    CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    ARTICLE 5. COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL ACTION
    PART 2. INDICTMENTS AND INFORMATIONS

    C.R.S. 16-5-204 (2013)

    (4) (a) At the option of the prosecuting attorney, a grand jury subpoena may contain an advisement of rights. If the prosecuting attorney determines that an advisement is necessary, the grand jury subpoena shall contain the following advisement prominently displayed on the front of the subpoena:

    NOTICE

    (I)You have the right to retain an attorney to represent you and to advise you regarding your grand jury appearance.---(II)Anything you say to the grand jury may be used against you in a court of law.---(III)You have the right to refuse to answer questions if you feel the answers would tend to incriminate you or to implicate you in any illegal activity.---(IV)If you cannot afford or obtain an attorney, you may request the court to appoint an attorney to consult with or represent you.

    (b) Any witness who is not advised of his rights pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (4) shall not be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he testifies or any evidence he produces, nor shall any such testimony or evidence be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding, except for perjury, against him in any court.

    (c) Repealed.

    (d) Any witness subpoenaed to appear and testify before a grand jury or to produce books, papers, documents, or other objects before such grand jury shall be entitled to assistance of counsel during any time that such witness is being questioned in the presence of such grand jury, and counsel may be present in the grand jury room with his client during such questioning. However, counsel for the witness shall be permitted only to counsel with the witness and shall not make objections, arguments, or address the grand jury. Such counsel may be retained by the witness or may, for any person financially unable to obtain adequate assistance, be appointed in the same manner as if that person were eligible for appointed counsel. An attorney present in the grand jury room shall take an oath of secrecy. If the court, at an in camera hearing, determines that counsel was disruptive, then the court may order counsel to remain outside the courtroom when advising his client. No attorney shall be permitted to provide counsel in the grand jury room to more than one witness in the same criminal investigation, except with the permission of the grand jury.

    (e) Once a grand jury has returned a no true bill based upon a transaction, set of transactions, event, or events, a grand jury inquiry into the same transaction or events shall not be initiated unless the court finds, upon a proper showing by the prosecuting attorney, that the prosecuting attorney has discovered additional evidence relevant to such inquiry.

    (f) An authorized reporter shall be present at all grand jury sessions. All grand jury proceedings and testimony from commencement to adjournment shall be reported. The reporter's notes and any transcripts which may be prepared shall be preserved, sealed, and filed with the court. No release or destruction of the notes or transcripts shall occur without prior court approval.

    (g) Upon application by the prosecutor, or by any witness after notice to the prosecutor, the court, for good cause, may enter an order to furnish to that witness a transcript of his own grand jury testimony, or minutes, reports, or exhibits relating to them.

    (h) Any witness summoned to testify before a grand jury, or an attorney for such witness with the witness's written approval, shall be entitled, prior to testifying, to examine and copy at the witness's expense any statement in the possession of the prosecuting attorney or the grand jury which such witness has made to any law enforcement or prosecution official or under an oath required by law that relates to the subject matter under inquiry by the grand jury.
    If a witness is proceeding in forma pauperis, he shall be furnished, upon request, a copy of such transcript and shall not pay a fee.

    So if a person is summoned to appear (my synopsis):

    1. They can have an attorney with them to advise them during their testimony.
    2. The lawyer cannot “make objections, arguments, or address the grand jury” (as they would do in a trial). Further, if the lawyer does become disruptive, they can be forced out of the proceedings (How long would it have taken Lin Wood to get expelled?).
    3. The witness in a GJ can at any time invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer.
    4. If requested by the witness (or legal council), before giving testimony he/she will be furnished with prior statements made by them (or about them, as I understand (h) above) and any reports or exhibits relating to them (This is the reason the attorney representing BR -- even as simply a witness -- was given a copy of the 911 recording.). Basically, this means that PR and JR would be supplied with any of the incriminating evidence pertaining to them that the GJ might have.

    So it seems to me, knowing the unstated circumstances around the GJ and the possibility of Ramsey testimony, there was a “cat and mouse game”, or an intricate dance being performed. On the prosecution side, they (DA’s office, GJ, and BPD) were “investigating” what happened with no particular POI. The Ramseys (being the innocent victims) wanted to assist, but wouldn’t provide any information that would lead to an indictment against them, so they wouldn’t have wanted to invoke the Fifth. Were they called, all information, police reports, “expert” opinions, and testimony by others pertaining to them would be given over to them and their attorneys (which would aid in their defense if charges were ever pursued). In effect, what purpose would it have served to call them as witnesses?

    While reading through the statutes at http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/, I also ran across a couple of things I thought were interesting. Not to get too far OT from the original question, but I’ll just mention them here so we’re aware of them.

    Spousal privilege, marital privilege, spousal immunity, are all terms describing the fact that a person does not have to give testimony against their spouse. This is a privilege -- not a right, and states are allowed to define the extent to which it can be used. CO specifically denies this privilege in the cases of Class 1, 2, and 3 felonies (CRS 13-90-107. Who may not testify without consent - definitions):
    (II) The privilege described in this paragraph (a) does not apply to class 1, 2, or 3 felonies as described in section 18-1.3-401 (1) (a) (IV) and (1) (a) (V), C.R.S.
    It is also denied as it may apply in a case of child abuse:
    The marital privilege cannot be invoked to exclude a spouse's testimony in a case involving child abuse. People v. Corbett, 656 P.2d 687 (Colo. 1983).
    Besides spouses, this same statute (CRS 13-90-107) defines the privilege as it is allowed to attorneys, clergy, physicians, etc.

    In C.R.S. 18-6-401, Wrongs to Children, (Child Abuse) it states specifically (Dr. Beuf needs to read this):
    The statutory privilege between patient and physician and between husband and wife shall not be available for excluding or refusing testimony in any prosecution for a violation of this section.
    Further in this statute:
    (7) (a) Where death or injury results, the following shall apply:

    (I) When a person acts knowingly or recklessly and the child abuse results in death to the child, it is a class 2 felony except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection (7).
    “Paragraph (c) of this subsection” states:
    (c) When a person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained twelve years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the child, such person commits the crime of murder in the first degree as described in section 18-3-102 (1) (f).
    Clarifications after this statute state:
    Inaction may be act of mistreatment. The child abuse statute proscribes acts of mistreatment which include inaction as well as action. People v. Jennings, 641 P.2d 276 (Colo. 1982).

    "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).
    One more interesting tidbit I ran across in C.R.S. 18-6-701, (Contributing to the delinquency of a minor) that I’ll just copy for anyone to decide for themselves how (or if) it applies here:
    An adult may be charged with violating this statute regardless of whether the minor was actually charged with or convicted of a crime or whether the minor was old enough to be charged with or convicted of a crime. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1991).

    The statute does not require that a minor child be charged or convicted of a crime or that the child be older than ten years old for a person to be found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1991).
     
  13. Venom

    Venom Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    otg- You are awesome. Seriously,you always go above and beyond to answer questions. And you write it out so coherent. :loveyou: Thanks.
     
  14. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,053
    Likes Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    63
    A person on trial will always have their lawyers present. But when a person is called to testify before a GJ, they may NOT have a lawyer present. However, in either case, they cannot be compelled to answer specific questions that may expose their involvement in the crime for which they are being investigated. This is known as "taking the 5th" or invoking their Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate themselves. Of course, if a person refuses to answer on the ground that it may incriminate themselves, it is like saying aloud that they ARE, in fact, guilty of some involvement in the crime. I am not sure whether it was the DA who did not allow the Rs to be called before the GJ or if it was some machinations by their defense team (or both) but they likely thought that if the Rs did not testify, they would not be in a position to "take the 5th" and so would seem "less guilty". The fact that BR was called (although he did not testify in person, as is required) may indicate that he was the focus of the investigation from the beginning. He could safely testify because he was immune from prosecution anyway.
     
  15. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    (bbm)
    But, DD, the CO statutes specifically say that you are allowed to have a lawyer present. Here's that part again bolded:
    (d) Any witness subpoenaed to appear and testify before a grand jury or to produce books, papers, documents, or other objects before such grand jury shall be entitled to assistance of counsel during any time that such witness is being questioned in the presence of such grand jury, and counsel may be present in the grand jury room with his client during such questioning. However, counsel for the witness shall be permitted only to counsel with the witness and shall not make objections, arguments, or address the grand jury. Such counsel may be retained by the witness or may, for any person financially unable to obtain adequate assistance, be appointed in the same manner as if that person were eligible for appointed counsel. An attorney present in the grand jury room shall take an oath of secrecy. If the court, at an in camera hearing, determines that counsel was disruptive, then the court may order counsel to remain outside the courtroom when advising his client. No attorney shall be permitted to provide counsel in the grand jury room to more than one witness in the same criminal investigation, except with the permission of the grand jury.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice