What type of justice would you like to see done?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by ellen13, Jan 9, 2006.

  1. ellen13

    ellen13 New Member

    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's say the Rams are guilty and they finally admitted it was a cover-up for Burke. What type of justice would you like to see done????
    I mean would you want prison time for them, Burke to go to a pschiatric ward?
    I guess outside of a confession where we all finally learned the truth from the horses' mouths, what would be true justice in your opinion for a cover-up murder, commited by a 9 year old???
    I guess I just want to see what people on this board would want done.
    In my mind, Patsy is already paying the price with her cancer and they've lost
    everything financially, John has already lost 2 daughters. I mean should they all go to prison, too? Or....................
    Let's say out of the starting gate that BR accidentally killed JBR and the parents called the police in the beginning and were truthful about how she died. What would you have wanted at that point in terms of justice??
    My question is, outside of the TRUTH, what do we really want to happen???:confused:
     
  2. Loading...


  3. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    ellen13,

    If Burke, at age nine, murdered JonBenet by himself then there's nothing to do. I think he would have already been sufficiently counselled by Dr. Jaffee. The parents didn't break the law during the coverup because under the Colorado Children's Code it's lawful to lie to protect the identity of an underage child involved in a major crime.

    However, IMO there's a strong likelihood that a fifth person was in the house that night, let into the house by Burke. If so, the question is: How old was that fifth person? Was he prosecutable? Is someone getting away with murder?

    BlueCrab
     
  4. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ Active Member

    Messages:
    30,907
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    BlueCrab,

    I know you speak of the Colorado Children's Code often, I have searched and searched and I am unable to verify that it is lawful to lie to protect a minor involved in a major crime. I would love to read this code myself. Can you link me?
     
  5. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Linda7NJ,

    In Colorado no person under the age of 10 can be charged with a crime. The identities of these persons, even if they commit a crime, are automatically sealed by the court. Children age 10 or older (through age 17) can also have their records sealed. Here's the wording that allows a lie to be lawfully told in order to protect the identity of a child who has committed a crime:

    COLORADO CHILDREN'S CODE -- "Persons who have had their juvenile records sealed may lawfully and properly reply that no such record exists. However, the record is still available to the district attorney, law enforcement, the courts, and the department of human services. Government agencies cannot show the records to anyone without an order from the court."

    BlueCrab
     
  6. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Couldn't find anything pertaining to children under age 10. For what it's worth I did find this info on Colorado juveniles:

    http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051218/NEWS01/512180377

    In Colorado, where criminal proceedings are open, Denver Presiding Juvenile Court Judge Karen Ashby said news organizations usually don't identify juveniles by name, even though they are allowed to do so.


    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4083343,00.html

    Colorado differs from many states in another respect. It allows district attorneys to "direct file" a juvenile case in adult court. Until 1993, a judge had to hold a hearing to transfer the charges, Grant said. That same year, the law was expanded to allow children as young as 12 to be tried in adult court for violent crimes, although transfer hearings are still required for children younger than 14.

    Added: It seems incongruous that a 12 year old can be tried as an adult but a 10 year old can't be charged at all.
     
  7. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BlueCrab,

    I think I'm understanding the Code a little differently than you are. As I see it,if at some point in Burke's life,he is asked if he has a criminal record,he can say no he does not,and he would be legally correct.Something seems terribly wrong,or the basis of the Code is being seriously stretched,to use the Code to say the murder had not been solved,and they are still trying to capture the killer.

    But the point I really want to discuss is this:Let's put aside Burke for the moment,and look at Patsy and John. The Code does not apply to the parents,some posters believe PR and JR were part of a cover up,wouldn't they be liable for a cover up,if there was one?
     
  8. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    capps,

    The statute of limitations has expired in regard to charging the Ramseys with obstruction of justice for carrying out the coverup.

    But that's a moot issue anyway, because if Burke killed JonBenet the parents would have to lie or else the truth would be revealed, thus violating The Children's Code that protects a nine-year-old child who committed a crime from having his identity publicly known.

    Who's still trying to capture the killer? There doesn't appear to be anyone. There's no money in the Boulder budget to carry out an active investigation, and Jim Kolar is there merely to make it look like an active investigation is taking place. IMO there's nothing going on but a conspiratorial coverup of the truth that involves the Boulder DA's office, the courts, and certain media -- all of whom know who killed JonBenet but are conspiring with the Boulder court in an attempt to give the Ramseys back their lives.

    BlueCrab
     
  9. Nehemiah

    Nehemiah Active Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Would that simply be out of the goodness of their hearts?
     
  10. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Nehemiah,

    Both. They have to follow the law and pretend there was an intruder; and they want to rehabilitate the Ramseys.
     
  11. Nehemiah

    Nehemiah Active Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    But why? Why not just carry on with other things? Why bring up the whole DNA trail...the new investigators....etc? It seems that it would be easier just to never mention it again; Boulder doesn't seem to be interested.
     
  12. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Children under 10 aren't taken into custody and held. I don't see anything to suggest LE goes through a great chrade of pretending to continue to investigate the crime. The case is handled through the "appropriate investigative bureau, section or unit."

    http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:SeSEHtrP5X0J:www.denvergov.org/police/opmanual/403a.pdf+colorado+crime+%22under+ten+years+of+age%22&hl=en

    403.02
    Children Under Ten Years of Age
    (1)
    Children under 10 years of age cannot be held for a crime.
    (2)
    Children under 10 years of age taken into custody in the course of a criminal investigation will be:
    a.
    Taken home to their parent or guardian.
    b.
    Left at their homes in the custody of a responsible relative 12 years of age or older.
    c.
    Placed in shelter if no parent, guardian or responsible relative 12 years of age or older is available.
    (3)
    When a juvenile offender under 10 years of age is taken home, the officer shall, using DPD Form 75, Request to Appear, order the parent or guardian to appear with the child at the appropriate bureau, section or unit if the offense is other than an ordinance violation.
    (4)
    Juveniles taken into custody for ordinance violations who are less than ten years of age will be handled according to Section 403.02(2)a., b., or c. and not ordered-in to any investigative bureau, section or unit. The Juvenile Case Summary will be completed in detail and forwarded directly to the Juvenile Records Unit, Property Crimes Bureau.
    In the narrative portion of the Juvenile Case Summary, list the parents’ names, addresses, phone numbers and the
    school/grade the child attends.
    (5)
    On the Juvenile Case Summary, the "Referred to Juvenile Court" box will be checked "No" and the "Reason for
    Non-Referral" box will be checked "Other", with the printed notation, "Under 10 Years Old". The box "Exceptionally
    Cleared" will be checked.
    (6)
    Distribution of copies of the Juvenile Case Summary.
    a.
    No copies need to be made if the offense is an ordinance violation.
    b.
    For charges other than ordinance violations, two copies of the Juvenile Case Summary will be left at or
    sent to the appropriate investigative bureau, section or unit by inter-department mail
    .

    Exceptional clearance means the crime is solved but no arrest will be made.
     
  13. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...xceptionally+clear+an+incident+colorado&hl=en
    […]
    In order to exceptionally clear an incident the appropriate cleared exceptional code and exceptional
    clearance date must be submitted in the administrative segment.
    Agencies are required to enter the
    Administrative, Offense, Victim, Offender, and when applicable Property segments when an incident is
    cleared exceptionally. In order to exceptionally clear an incident, all four of the following conditions must be
    met:
    1)
    The police investigation must have clearly and definitely established the identity of at least one
    offender. If the age, sex and race of at least one offender are unknown, the incident cannot be
    exceptionally cleared.
    2)
    Sufficient probable cause must have been developed to support the arrest, charging, and
    prosecution of the offender.
    3)
    The exact location of the offender must be known so that an arrest could be made.
    4)
    There must be a reason outside of the control of law enforcement that prevents the arrest of the
    offender. (FBI NIBRS Edition Handbook, pg. 34)
    At least one offender’s age, sex and race must be known. If an offender segment is submitted with the
    offender number of “00” (Double zero) or the offender age, sex and/or race are entered as unknown, the
    incident cannot be exceptionally cleared. In addition, when a Group A Incident is submitted as
    exceptionally cleared, an Arrestee Segment cannot be submitted.
    All Incident Must Be Submitted With The Same ORI
    All segments included in a monthly data submission file must be submitted with the same nine digit
    NCIC ORI for a local agency.
    […]
     
  14. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When a school is failing, the Government send in a special task force of highly experienced school managers to turn the school around. Why can't the same thing happen for failed investigations?

    Why was JonBenet Ramsey considered to be a second class citizen - her murder unworthy of a proper, no-nonsense investigation?

    I would like to see a task force of world class investigators reinvestigate this case from scratch - no holds barred. Every witness reinterviewed. Every piece of evidence retested. Polygraphs for everyone and done by the same polygrapher who would be selected by the elite task force.

    Pay them for 1 year - see if they can solve the case.
     
  15. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's the rub. Who is going to pay for it? And if the government pays for reinvestigating JonBenet, why don't all the other unsolved victims qualify for equal treatment?

    Added: I wish that group (whose name I can never remember) would take on the case but as I recall they have quite specific guidelines as to who can request they get involved etc.
     
  16. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Every witness reinterviewed: no new information.

    Every piece of evidence retested: no additional conclusion.

    Polygraphs for everyone: no new lies.

    Save your money. With this strategy they probably wont solve the case, because the perp is probably not among this pool of witnesses or liars.

    I mean, if that's your idea of 'no holds barred'.
     
  17. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No holds barred means full co-operation.
     
  18. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well I guess that is indeed the rub.

    It would be nice to think that some rich, interested party somewhere might put up the money to try and get this case resolved. I just feel that if the case were put in the hands of an elite, unbiased group of expert investigators then some progress might be made. People who aren't politically motivated and whose egos are only huge in the respect that they they strive to be the best at what they do.

    No-one should be allowed to dodge questions without it being known that this would raise a red flag with regard to their suspicion rating.

    Wouldn't that be nice?
     
  19. Nehemiah

    Nehemiah Active Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    What about the Ramseys? John stated in one of his depos that he would continue to search for the killer (my paraphrase here).

    This, in stark contrast to the Moxleys, who persevered for years.

    A cousin of mine was brutally murdered. Her sister fought for justice by getting involved in the investigation, court proceedings, etc.. She wrote a book, got on the talk show circuit, just to keep the case in the forefront. When the murderer was up for parole, and when his atty tried to get a mistrial, she and other family were right there...very involved. To this day she remains involved in whatever way necessary to see that justice is maintained. I realize that this is a different case than JBR's murder, but I do wonder why the Rs don't push this case to the front and use some of their money to find the perp rather than try to make themselves "appear" innocent to the general public.
     
  20. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. I don't think they should pay for any part of the investigation. That way that have no clout and cannot be accused of buying any results.
     
  21. Nehemiah

    Nehemiah Active Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Good point.
     

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