First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Feb 12

Aiea, HI

#23 Feb 15, 2013
Estel wrote:
<quoted text>Child sexual abuse(not sure about non-sexual abuse) has no statute of limitations in Colorado. Look up the laws...
Hi Estel, I now realize that child sexual abuse has no statute of limitations in CO. However, going by the evidence in this case, it would be quite difficult to prove SEXUAL abuse by the parents. I think abuse would be no problem, but I also think it might have lapsed the statute of limitations.

The problem here, is if it is child SEXUAL abuse, it has no limitation, but suppose you have an adult who beat his/her kid with a stick years ago? It may be child abuse then, but there would be a LOT to prove.
CC

Since: Feb 12

Aiea, HI

#24 Feb 15, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Hi CC,
Where did you find the statute for Child Abuse Resulting in Death?
Granted, I just had time to skim it when I posted it, but I didn't see it.
We can't confuse the Child Abuse with the Sexual Abuse as I believe they are separate charges.
<quoted text>
Hi DrS,
I don't think you will find a charge of "Child abuse resulting in death." I think that would come under murder or manslaughter, which I think would be impossible to win a conviction in a criminal trial.

The problem with the JB case, is that I think they could have convicted Patsy for obstruction of justice, by convincing the jury that she authored the ransom note, but I don't think that murder, or child abuse would get a conviction, because other than writing the RN, I think the finger could point to John or Burke as the possible culprit in the abuse.
CC
Estel

Brooklyn, NY

#25 Feb 17, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Hi CC,
Where did you find the statute for Child Abuse Resulting in Death?
Granted, I just had time to skim it when I posted it, but I didn't see it.
We can't confuse the Child Abuse with the Sexual Abuse as I believe they are separate charges.
<quoted text>
sexual abuse is included under the Child Abuse "umbrella" {or in Ramsey speak, "parasol."} It wouldn t be a separate indicment. Maybe a separate count, not sure, but the autopsy report lists injuries that are sexual in nature and they are part of the series of injuries that led ultimately to her death.
Estel

Brooklyn, NY

#26 Feb 17, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Estel, I now realize that child sexual abuse has no statute of limitations in CO. However, going by the evidence in this case, it would be quite difficult to prove SEXUAL abuse by the parents. I think abuse would be no problem, but I also think it might have lapsed the statute of limitations.
The problem here, is if it is child SEXUAL abuse, it has no limitation, but suppose you have an adult who beat his/her kid with a stick years ago? It may be child abuse then, but there would be a LOT to prove.
CC
it is complex. That is why I said "read the laws". One interesting twist I see is that if the child is under 12 years of age, if the abuser is in a position of trust and if the abuser knowingly caused the abuse that ultimately resulted in death, it becomes murder in the first degree. I believe that is for sentencing purposes, rather than making the indictment one of murder).

In other words, child abuse resulting in death was as serious an indictment as murder would have been, but without having to prove murder.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#27 Feb 17, 2013
Child abuse leading to death was exactly what the from wealth Midyette parents were indicted for by a grand jury in Boulder. Both parents lawyered up in the emergency room, and refused to cooperate with the police investigation. Lacy however was under ENORMOUS pressure NOT to sweep the case under the rug, because when the mainstream media tuned in AGAIN to Boulder with the Karr arrest, what should they find but deja vu all over again, two parents from wealth with a dead kid with 37 broken bones, who had NOT been arrested or indicted for months. Lacy had personally tried a similar case of a man NOT from wealth, Joseph Dowler, in the child abuse death of his son, but she also charged him with first degree murder and first degree child abuse, which was NOT among the charges brought against the Midyettes whose son had 37 broken bones. Dowler got 60 years, the Midyettes combined got less than half of that sentence, and Molly is set to be released any day into a half way house after only doing 5 years in prison.
mee

Epsom, UK

#28 Mar 11, 2013
Sunshine wrote:
Rdi's believe they now have a leg to stand on because of the latest grand jury news who voted to indict....here's why that news means nothing today....first reason, someone once said that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich....also, if you took a public poll back in 2008 you would probably find that almost 90 percent of the public thought the Ramseys were guilty including myself...I thought Patsey had done it up until 2001 when I finally saw the truth...it was the fat cat who was close to the Ramsey's...take that same public poll today and that total would be greatly reduced....there's a reason why they didn't prosecute because they didn't have a case, because the Ramsey's didn't do it. The police now have the investigation again so why haven't they arrested the John Ramsey yet? Why haven't they taken the apology back? Because the Ramsey's didn't do it....only RDI's still hang on to that belief because they are fooled by the fact that John Ramsey is still covering up for this killer which makes him look guilty...which he is of a cover-up. 1998 was a long time ago when most people thought it was the Ramsey's, but RDI's go ahead and hang your hat on it, its just to bad for you that the Ramsey's have an apology letter in their possesion.
totally agree

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#29 Mar 11, 2013
If you are going to try and ride the coattails or emulate someone I would choose someone other than Sunshine since they don't seem to know what they are talking about and make stuff up! There is another person with an agenda - you should have recognized that.
mee wrote:
<quoted text>totally agree
mee

Epsom, UK

#30 Mar 11, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
If you are going to try and ride the coattails or emulate someone I would choose someone other than Sunshine since they don't seem to know what they are talking about and make stuff up! There is another person with an agenda - you should have recognized that.
<quoted text>
what agenda..these are just opinions...just because some people still believe patsy and john are innocent and have a different opinion to you doesnt make them wrong...this is still an unsolved case..

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#31 Mar 11, 2013
More correctly it is an unprosecuted case.

I have said this several times already this morning, it is totally fine for you to have opinions and for you to express them. It would help however if they were believable and based on the facts of this case as we know them. Unfortunately, they are not fact-based, they are merely your opinion - so yes, people are going to disagree with you.
mee wrote:
<quoted text>what agenda..these are just opinions...just because some people still believe patsy and john are innocent and have a different opinion to you doesnt make them wrong...this is still an unsolved case..
mee

Epsom, UK

#32 Mar 11, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
More correctly it is an unprosecuted case.
I have said this several times already this morning, it is totally fine for you to have opinions and for you to express them. It would help however if they were believable and based on the facts of this case as we know them. Unfortunately, they are not fact-based, they are merely your opinion - so yes, people are going to disagree with you.
<quoted text>
no the case is unsolved.....nobody is in prison....my facts are as belivable as yours...and what you are saying is only your opinion...there are lots of therories...which is why there are such things as forums...

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#33 Mar 11, 2013
mee wrote:
<quoted text>no the case is unsolved.....nobody is in prison....my facts are as belivable as yours...and what you are saying is only your opinion...there are lots of therories...which is why there are such things as forums...
There is a huge difference in espousing ones opinion and then calling it a fact. In your world, you are saying you know more than the entire police department and the DA's office, and the FBI, and all of the investigators since you believe it is ok to continue pointing your fingers at people the police have cleared by one means or another. That is just arrogant and wrong. Why don't you just throw JMK's hat back in the ring while you are at it? No means, motive or opportunity, but hey those are just silly details, right?

You may need a conspiracy forum, and believe it or not, this is not it!
Steve Eller

United States

#34 Mar 11, 2013
mee wrote:
<quoted text>no the case is unsolved.....nobody is in prison....my facts are as belivable as yours...and what you are saying is only your opinion...there are lots of therories...which is why there are such things as forums...
You don't present any facts. In order to have a theory first you must have a hypothesis. In order to form a hypothesis you need to understand information and data. You are far far and away from approaching the pre hypothesis threshold.
mee

Epsom, UK

#35 Mar 12, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a huge difference in espousing ones opinion and then calling it a fact. In your world, you are saying you know more than the entire police department and the DA's office, and the FBI, and all of the investigators since you believe it is ok to continue pointing your fingers at people the police have cleared by one means or another. That is just arrogant and wrong. Why don't you just throw JMK's hat back in the ring while you are at it? No means, motive or opportunity, but hey those are just silly details, right?
You may need a conspiracy forum, and believe it or not, this is not it!
i dont claim to know more about it then the police..you lot on here are so clique...im not pointing the finger at anybody..i have an open mind and like to hear everybodys theories.my opinion is patsy and john are innocent..thats it...if your opinion is they are guilty thats up to you....sounds like your the one who thinks you know everything.lastly why cant i discuss conspiracy on here...because you dont like it???
mee

Epsom, UK

#36 Mar 12, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't present any facts. In order to have a theory first you must have a hypothesis. In order to form a hypothesis you need to understand information and data. You are far far and away from approaching the pre hypothesis threshold.
tell me steve eller....since your god of this case....who did it???
Biz

Port Richey, FL

#37 Apr 10, 2013
Nicely written Sunshine! The RDI's love to live a life of denial and hate.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#38 Apr 10, 2013
Biz wrote:
Nicely written Sunshine! The RDI's love to live a life of denial and hate.
And that is still better than your life of lies to the public and nobody is in more denial than the IDI and you in particular with your "sources" that are the same sources we all have: other posters LOL

Give it up biz. You lost your credibility a long time ago

Since: Jul 13

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#49 Aug 2, 2013
There's a question I asked Biz in a PM that no one else brought up. Was the grand jury verdict unanimous? I ask this because under Colorado state law, only 9 out of the 12 are required to vote yes for an indictment to be issued.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Upcoming National Enquirer story - JonBenet Ram... (Oct '10) 36 min Heloise 47
ICU2 's Child Trafficking 53 min Legal__Eagle 8
Fleet and Priscilla White on Peter Boyles show ... 2 hr berrytea333 6
Fleet White depo article (Mar '07) 14 hr candy 358
"Note-Free Case Discussion" 14 hr Legal__Eagle 98
Timeline of Ramsey case unsourced DNA (Jun '12) 15 hr candy 7
Clay Evans leaves the Camera (Mar '07) 15 hr candy 14
More from around the web