Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 131920212223
Results 265 to 274 of 274
  1. #265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Henry Lee’s mistake was listening to Hunter whose primary grasp of the law was in the realm of plea bargaining. (The bar must have been set low when Hunter passed the bar.)

    To be clear, there were a number of “lesser charges” which could have been charged if the intention was never to "go for the gold," so to speak.
    The GJ true bills of indictment contained what were arguably “lesser charges” in that they were not murder in the first degree, however, the child abuse resulting in death charges were extremely serious. A Class 2 felony carries a sentence range of four to 48 years in prison. (The statute of limitations is three years from the date of the crime.)
    I should also underscore that the term “accessory” which in present (and 1996) Colorado law refers to what is in general legal terms, accessory after the fact.
    In other States, there may also be defined: accessory before the fact and principal in the second degree (or what amounts to accessory during the fact.)
    In Colorado they lumped accessory before and during the fact under the legal theory of complicity and therefore the “accessory” becomes an accomplice and is subject to the same legal penalty as the principal. It should be noted that there does not need to be an identification of a principal, the participants may all be treated as principals.
    (This effectively negates the cross finger-pointing defense.)
    The jury instruction on the law reads as follows:
    A person is guilty of an offense committed by another person if he is a complicitor. To be guilty as a complicitor, the following must be established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt:
    1. A crime must have been committed.
    2. Another person must have committed all or part of the crime.
    3. The defendant must have had knowledge that the other person intended to commit all or part of the crime.
    4 The defendant must have had the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime.
    5. The defendant must have aided, abetted, advised, or encouraged the other person in the commission or planning of the crime.

    https://www.colorado-drug-crimes-law...-did-much-less

    Getting back to Lee and Hunter…
    The comment in Lee’s book is a reiteration of what Schiller attributes to Hunter.
    Schiller’s footnote reflects legal reality.
    In addition, the DA believed that under Colorado law an accessory could be charged only when a principal was charged.* Harder evidence would be needed to charge a perpetrator.
    The footnote says:
    *This is not Colorado law. The successful prosecution of an accessory does not require the charging of a principal. Howard v. People, 51 P.2d 594(1935); Britto v. People, 497 P 2d 325 (1972)

    Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, page 422

    Some cases to illustrate the legal point:

    Britto v. People, Supreme Court of Colorado, May 8, 1972.
    It is inconsequential whether or not the principal was ever charged with the criminal offense. Oaks v. People, 161 Colo. 561, 424 P.2d 115 (1967).
    http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado...972/24066.html


    Oaks v. Patterson, 278 F. Supp. 703 (D. Colo. 1968)
    The State of Colorado has held that the accessory is subject to independent prosecution and can be convicted even though the principal actor has been neither charged nor convicted of an offense. Roberts v. People, 103 Colo. 250, 87 P.2d 251 (1938). Upon this basis an accessory can also be convicted although the principal actor has pled guilty to a lesser included offense. Oaks v. People, Colo., 424 P.2d 115, 117.
    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...8/703/1441736/


    Roberts v. People, Supreme Court of Colorado, September 19, 1938
    Butler's body was discovered in a well twenty-five miles from his ranch about six weeks after his disappearance. A piece of railroad iron was tied around his neck. An autopsy disclosed two skull fractures on the back of the head occasioned by some blunt instrument or instruments, either of which was sufficient, according to medical testimony, to cause death. The evidence is not controverted that Wier hauled the body from the Butler ranch to the well in Butler's car, Roberts following or preceding Wier in his own car. Neither is it disputed that Roberts assisted in unloading the body, and that Wier tied the weight to it and threw it into the well. On the return trip Wier poured gasoline over the Butler car and burned it, and Roberts then returned Wier to his ranch. From the date of this occurrence until subsequent to the time of the discovery of the body, Roberts, though questioned on numerous occasions by the officers investigating Butler's disappearance, repeatedly denied all knowledge of his whereabouts or what had happened to deceased. Finally Roberts and Wier both were arrested and each then accused the other of the murder; Roberts accusing Wier of killing Butler in his house with an axe, and Wier accusing Roberts of killing him with a chair. The two were charged with Butler's murder and obtained a severance for trial. On separate trials each was acquitted. The district attorney then, after Roberts' acquittal he being tried first, charged Roberts substantially in the language of the statute with being an accessory after the fact to Butler's murder by Wier. After Wier's acquittal of murder the district attorney amended the information charging the homicide to have been committed by a person or persons unknown to the district attorney, and Wier likewise was charged as an accessory to the murder of Butler by a person or persons unknown. Roberts was placed on trial on the accessory charge first. As soon as the jury retired to deliberate on his case, Wier was placed on trial on the accessory charge against him. The Roberts' jury returned a verdict of guilty while the Wier trial was in progress and thereupon with the consent of the court the district attorney dismissed the accessory charge against Wier
    https://casetext.com/case/bruhn-company-v-wagner
    Cynic, thanks again for shining more light on that issue of AH proclaiming that they wanted to “go for the gold” so to speak, and what he actually chose to do. Child abuse charges are very serious. Just my take, and of course the disclaimer I’m no attorney, but it seems that the GJ handed off what they felt was achievable in a court of law. IIRC, one CO attorney even thought it was a compromise decision.

    When I reviewed the Midyettes’ charges and convictions in Boulder it enlightened me a little further. Molly Midyette was given 3 charges of child abuse, to fit three different theories.

    In the charges against Molly it was explained this way: Each count charged against the Defendant is charged under C.R.S. 18-6-401. Under that statute, a person can commit child abuse resulting in death in several different ways. A person commits child abuse "if such person causes an injury to a child's life or health OR permits a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that poses a threat of injury to the child's life or health, OR engages in a continued pattern of conduct that results in malnourishment, lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment, or the accumulation of injuries that ultimately results in the death or a child . . ." These are alternate ways of committing a single crime--child abuse resulting in death. (The defendant in this case is not charged with causing an injury to Jason Midyette's life or health, resulting in death-only the co-defendant Alex Midyette is charged with that portion of the statute).

    The prosecution referenced other cases in order to be clear on why they levied three child abuse charges against her. In Lowe, the Colorado court held that although a defendant can only be convicted of and sentenced on one conviction of homicide for the death of one victim, the prosecution may, nevertheless charge the defendant in separate counts for different theories of murder. In addition, the Court held that ''The prosecution may, but should not be required to, elect among theories after the evidence is closed. If there is sufficient evidence in the record, all theories charged should be submitted to the jury for a special verdict. The jury should be informed that the defendant is charged with one crime, first degree murder. The jury's special verdict should indicate which theories of first degree murder, if any, have been proved by the evidence," Lowe at 1274 (emphasis added).

    Continuing with the Midyette charges: In the case before the Court, the People have made efforts to protect the record and avoid confusion on the part of the jury by providing each theory of child abuse in a separate charge. According to the Lowe court, such a proceeding is proper and preferable to a general verdict. "This procedure will avoid substantial double jeopardy questions being raised if the jury is forced to acquit on one theory in order to convict on a theory which is found to be erroneous on appeal." Lowe, at 1275.

    The People should not be required to elect a theory in this case or choose between counts. Nor should the People be required to merge the charges into a single count for a general verdict. At the close of the evidence, the People will provide a jury form, based on the form outlined in the Lowe case, to submit to the jury. The jury will be informed that the defendant can only be convicted of one charge of child abuse resulting in death, but may consider all theories as set out in the various counts.

    One of the grand jurors of the R case gave voice to the opinion that the Rs could have gotten JB help, and they didn’t. IMO, that was a powerful statement in its implications. (Note above the phrasing in the child abuse statute applying to Midyettes' about lack of medical care.) While some may disagree with me here, it’s not as though JB were cared for and protected by aliens in the home. Two adults were there.


    Name:  thoughballoons1.jpg
Views: 471
Size:  60.0 KB

  2. #266
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default Thank you, Cynic.

    To me the status of this sad case can be summed up in two quotes from Cynic's above post:

    "The case ended with Patsy's death."

    And Cynic's comment, " A Class 2 felony carries a sentence range of four to 48 years in prison. (The statute of limitations is three years from the date of the crime.)"

    Thanks for all the work you've done and shared for us here and at Websleuths.

  3. #267
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Bottom line for ME? BR molested her and bashed her on the head when she screamed. The parents (Patsy still dressed in her party clothes as she finished up preparations for the trip to Charlevoix), staged the crime scene after sending BR to his room (where he was told to STAY). This fits ALL the pieces together for me.
    It explains Patsy and JR's fibers present on the body and items used in the crime (paintbrush and tote, duct tape from JB's mouth, JB's interior panty crotch). On the secondary tier of fiber evidence would be Patsy's forearm hair on the white blanket, Patsy's and BR's tDNA on the pink nightie, Patsy and BR's prints on the pineapple bowl/glass and dark cotton fibers that MAY match JR's navy terry bathrobe.
    It explains a LOT as far as the GJ indictments. There was no need to worry about the "cross finger-pointing" defense. As mentioned- the principal perp was underage and could not be named. Neither could the accessories/accomplices be indicted because doing so would reveal the identity of the underage perp. This would likely be the case even though the accomplices committed a crime in and of itself- tampering with evidence (including the body), obstructing justice.
    All AH had to do was stall long enough for THOSE charges to be beyond the statutes of limitation and it was assured that this case would never see the inside of a courtroom.
    BDI with parental coverup is the ONLY thing that explains it all, IMO.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. #268
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    I'm still leaning toward a possible event involving JonBenet and Burke that precipitated actions from Patsy that resulted in JonBenet's death. That fits both Kolar and Thomas's findings as published in their books as well as fitting the true bill.

    I don't read the GJ true bill as necessarily involving Burke because it could also be interpreted, imo, as Patsy or John covering for each other or, for that matter, a third individual.

    I will go to my grave believing Patsy wrote the note.

  5. #269
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    I'm still leaning toward a possible event involving JonBenet and Burke that precipitated actions from Patsy that resulted in JonBenet's death. That fits both Kolar and Thomas's findings as published in their books as well as fitting the true bill.

    I don't read the GJ true bill as necessarily involving Burke because it could also be interpreted, imo, as Patsy or John covering for each other or, for that matter, a third individual.

    I will go to my grave believing Patsy wrote the note.
    I agree 100% with this.
    I despise the Ramseys and this is just my opinion

  6. #270
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thor View Post
    I agree 100% with this.




    Yes, Thor, I agree with BOESP too. It could have happened this way!


    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  7. #271
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    I cannot see why this indictment would not have gone forward if it was just Patsy & JR covering for each other. The cross-fingerpointing defense would not have been an issue in this case, as Colorado law would hold each responsible. To me, the ONLY reason I see this case as being stopped cold was if the one who started it all that night (the sexual assault and head bash) was under 10.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  8. #272
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    I cannot see why this indictment would not have gone forward if it was just Patsy & JR covering for each other. The cross-fingerpointing defense would not have been an issue in this case, as Colorado law would hold each responsible. To me, the ONLY reason I see this case as being stopped cold was if the one who started it all that night (the sexual assault and head bash) was under 10.
    I'm not sure the cross-fingerpointing defense was why the indictment was not filed. Could be but it is such a cleverly worded true bill and we didn't get to see all of the document (iirc).

    My very unlearned opinion is Alex Hunter saw no reason to drag the dirty linen in public for a case against people who "didn't mean for this to happen."

    I suspect Hunter felt the Ramseys were punished enough by the outcome of events on the night JonBenet died. I suspect he saw no reason to spend taxpayer money for such a sad case and for one which had already delivered the ultimate punishment.

    In a lot of ways, I truly feel sorry for Patsy Ramsey.

  9. #273
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Cool

    Just to clear up my post from yesterday: I am no way/no how a Ramsey or Hunter apologist.

    I should have stated that my above post is only partly why I think Hunter avoided filing an indictment. There are other less kind reasons such as possible conflict(s) of interest; fear of loosing; and probably other underlying reasons.

    I still think Patsy is the most likely suspect but we all have our opinions.

  10. #274
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    Just to clear up my post from yesterday: I am no way/no how a Ramsey or Hunter apologist.

    I should have stated that my above post is only partly why I think Hunter avoided filing an indictment. There are other less kind reasons such as possible conflict(s) of interest; fear of loosing; and probably other underlying reasons.

    I still think Patsy is the most likely suspect but we all have our opinions.
    I haven't been involved so much with
    posting on a regular basis BOESP, in the way I used to post. Haven't had the time
    due to changes in our lives being Seniors,
    but like you, I feel Patsy is the most likely
    suspect.

    Young Burke according to what I remember reading was very much into himself and
    not involved with JonBenét a great deal.
    He was very much involved in playing with his own hand held games according to what I remember reading, plus I believe he hit JonBenét with a golf club if I remember correctly. I cannot see a boy like this
    fawning over a younger sister in a sexual manner.

    I cannot get over the number of times
    young JonBenét was taken to her doctor
    by Patsy. I personally think Burke didn't
    like his young sister her too much at all!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.



Similar Threads

  1. Forensic linguistics could solve this crime
    By heymom in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: June 3, 2014, 11:47 am, Tue Jun 3 11:47:31 UTC 2014
  2. Forensic Evidence 2: Bedwetting
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: January 7, 2007, 2:05 pm, Sun Jan 7 14:05:19 UTC 2007
  3. Forensic evidence
    By rashomon in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 500
    Last Post: December 31, 2006, 10:57 pm, Sun Dec 31 22:57:09 UTC 2006
  4. Keith Ablow, Forensic Psychiatrist
    By Ginja in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 26, 2006, 12:52 am, Sat Aug 26 0:52:15 UTC 2006
  5. A bug life: 10 questions for a forensic entomologist
    By "J_R" in forum Major Criminal Trial Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 30, 2004, 3:39 pm, Fri Jul 30 15:39:23 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •