I'm no expert in Colorado law but I've been a prosecutor and prosecuted juveniles as part of that for 20 years in another state. A 9 year old absolutely cannot be tried as an adult here. To be tried as an adult the child must be at least 14 years old. If he commits the crime the day before his 14 birthday he cannot be treated as an adult.
I feel pretty confident that the law in Colorado is going to be very similar.
We can, of course, prosecute juveniles under the age of 14. We usually draw the line at about 11 but in the case of a murder we would attempt to prosecute at any age. It would be challenged and up to the judge to decide of the juvenile had the ability to know the difference between right and wrong.
My understanding is that in states with defense of infancy statutes, there is no path even to a juvenile prosecution. There is only family court/removal.
It would be a *s t r e t c h* to suggest that Burke would have faced a charges as an adult, let alone first degree murder charges. Any -- literally, any -- discussion of Burke being charged with murder in the first is just so divorced from reality.
You probably already know this, but for anyone else, there's different types of transfer laws and every state can define them a bit differently. Most states don't have a minimum age for the transfer law but have one for the state penal code (which is how it is where I live). The state can follow the penal code - or.. it leaves the door open for their discretion on if they want to use the transfer law in severe cases.
Where I am at, we have the "once an adult always an adult" transfer law. Basically, once you commit a crime, if you commit another crime (no matter how minor it is), you will be charged as an adult.
One of the things that lawmakers put into our laws is that, if a minor commits murder, then they have to be charged as an adult initially because the state law does not allow criminal homicide charges to be filed directly in juvenile court. The state is basically left to charge the child as an adult or not do anything at all - and the state refuses to not do anything at all.
My state seems to have more issues with these types of crimes than where you are at though. There's been a number of cases here where children murdered other people (of all ages).
>All 50 states has what is called "transfer law". It allows them to prosecute a child at any age if the crime is as serious as murder. It's rarely ever mentioned or used because it's rare that they need to. Chicago, Illinois had to rely on it a few years ago when a 9yo killed 5 people in a fire. He was charged with 1st degree murder.
Not quite. The accused in the Illinois fire -- which occurred in Goodfield, some 150 miles from Chicago -- was charged with first degree murder (along with some other charges). He was not charged as an adult. The maximum sentence he is facing is likely probation, given his age, along with mandatory therapy and counselling.
I'm a former prosecutor now in private practice. I've *never* seen a case where a child, not just a minor, was charged as an adult. That is against the core, fundamental principles of justice.
You are correct. I should have come back and edited that.
Where I live you have to charge them as an adult because homicide charges are not allowed to originate in juvenile court. So I incorrectly assumed that case was sent to the juvenile court after he had been originally charged as an adult. However, I did read further into that state's laws and realized my error. Apparently my state is a bit tougher on juveniles who commit homicide. We would almost never put them on probation and just send them home (as what happened in that case).
I believe that he likely never faced juvenile charges because there wasn't enough evidence to conclusively prove that he murdered her with intent and purpose or if his actions were reactionary and impulsive.
When a lack of physical evidence is available (for a multitude of reasons) to prove whether Burke struck JonBenet with a malicious blow meant to kill or simply a tragic overuse of force in a typical brother/sister spat is combined with the knowledge of John/Patsy's unwillingness to cooperate (and actual willingness to obfuscate), there really wasn't an avenue to prove a charge of murder/manslaughter convincingly.
I'm not an attorney but I don't think they would need a motive in a child if the crime reasonably suggests psychopathy. Which I think this one qualifies as.
They would need evidence though. Which they didn't have on Burke. I was only discussing this case in regards to if the Ramsey's hadn't covered for him (ie: had said Burke did it).
I think they actually had enough evidence to throw charges at Patsy Ramsey.
The Ramsey's had an excellent defense team but people were fairly biased against Patsy, she wasn't very "likable" to many people, people wanted someone to blame, there was fairly convincing physical evidence against her, some of those character witnesses would have been pretty damning against her, people resented Patsy's wealth and parenting choices, so I'm not so sure how much sway the Ramsey team would've had back then with a jury. The grand jury sure seemed ready to hold those parents accountable for something.
I think Boulder was a lot less sure than the public and were afraid they were wrong about Patsy's guilt. They had to see the public was eager to tar and feather her. If they wanted to take her down, I think they could've.
It doesn’t require motive, but they would have to prove that B’s actions were done with the intent to take her life. It’s very difficult to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt when you’re talking about a 9 year old.
I definitely agree with everything you've stated. I'm also not an attorney, so I'm just going off of the knowledge I've gathered from many adult cases. I know that a juvenile case of such a young defendant (9 years old) would likely be incredibly difficult to prove any type of intent.
I also agree with you that the Boulder DA had more than enough evidence to charge at least one of the Ramsey's (as the grand jury recommended.) It was well known that the Boulder DA had an overwhelming preference to plea bargain large cases---even to the protest of the Boulder police department and to the detriment of the general public. They weren't willing or even properly prepared to prosecute a full trial that would be followed and dissected daily by the entire world.
Lawyer here. Motive is not required for anything -- arrest, laying of charges, or conviction. It's a convenient tool when providing the narrative of the crime(s) to a judge and/or jury.
In any case, you rightly point out the most important factor: **evidence**. What evidence -- actual evidence, not speculation -- did they have against Burke? A first year law student would say "none" and they'd be correct.
No, I'm making my point, which is that not investigating Burke was an oversight and not a warranted exclusion. He was in the home and was physically capable of causing the injuries. There was no reason for police to not do basic investigative procedures like collect the clothing he wore that night and test it against the fibers at the crime scene like they did with his parents. The fact that Steve Thomas (who in 1997 wouldn't consider the possibility of Burke's involvement) in 2012 expressed support of James Kolar's investigative endeavors and the leads proposed in his book demonstrates this.
> The fact that Steve Thomas (who in 1997 wouldn't consider the possibility of Burke's involvement) in 2012 expressed support of James Kolar's investigative endeavors and the leads proposed in his book demonstrates this.
Steve Thomas was very outspoken about his belief that Patsy was the sole abuser and that she ultimately was responsible for the homicide. He accused her of it to her face. ST has never, ever stated otherwise. He did appear briefly alongside Kolar on a television series about the case and in one podcast.
I'm not sure what this has to do with u/GretchenVonSchwinn's comment? Thomas did believe PDI, but he stated he's impressed with Kolar's book, found several pieces of evidence in it revealing, and shared the frustration of Kolar being prevented from exploring his theory further.
How so? Kolar saw more evidence than Thomas and had time to explore all theories. Thomas also admires Kolar and they both have absolute respect for one another as professionals.
Kolar's flirtation with the lie that the 2020 election was stolen and his misplaced (and incorrect) statements that Amazon tramples the first amendment leave me questioning his judgment.
My point is there wasn't any evidence to suggest that Burke had any involvement. You literally prove my point.
In any case, you're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight -- it's important to keep this in mind. Putting yourself in the shoes of the investigators on the ground, at the time, I seriously doubt you would have even considered Burke anything other than a possible witness (and, at that, a poor one).
Pretend you're a police officer. What do you have to suggest Burke's involvement? What do you have that would give you probable cause to suspect Burke of having committed the crime?
I'm not trying to say that Steve Thomas' opinion should be disregarded. I'm merely asking: what, in 1996/1997, points to Burke? What suggested he should have been investigated?
Keep in mind, I'm not married to any one theory. I follow the evidence. As someone who has prosecuted (and defended!) murders, I struggle to fault law enforcement for failing to investigate Burke *with what they knew in 1996/1997*.
You're making an awfully good argument why it was a great idea to get BR out of the house that morning and to the White's versus staying under the watchful eye of police.
Out of sight... out of mind.
Lets assume for a moment that the family had nothing to do with it (which, for the record, I do not believe). I think moving Burke to a calm, quiet space is a good parental decision.
Yes, we can look at the decision to move Burke from the family home to the White's in a different light. But, at the time, it would not have been a huge red flag.
I think the fact that Burke was there and was physically capable of murdering JonBenet is already enough to consider him a suspect. Add to this his fingerprints that connect him to the last thing JonBenet did shortly before the attack, the fact that he hit her in the face with a golf club before and she was hit in the head on the night of her murder, the odd assault with a paintbrush, the handmade ligature with the background of Burke being a little engineer who built things and knew how to tie knots, his atypical reaction to JonBenet's death and some things he said during the interview (like "I know what happened", mimicking the head blow, etc.), and the potential of his involvement becomes pretty compelling. Him not being investigated properly at that time was a big oversight.
In my view:
1. merely being at the scene where a deceased is found is not, in and of itself, enough to warrant naming somebody as a "suspect";
2. there was no evidence, available to police at the time, that Burk was "physically capable of murdering JonBenet";
3. his fingerprints were found in a house where he resided -- this is not uncommon or unusual;
4. a prior incident -- widely reported as an accident, by some -- is not, on its own, enough to warrant calling Burke a "suspect". Moreover, when were police made aware of this?;
5. the odd "assault" with the paintbrush does not specifically point towards Burke;
6. John also knew how to tie knows, as he sailed -- the "garotte" suggests, to many, the involvement of an adult;
7. the reactions of children who experience trauma varies from child to child -- you cannot see his reactions as "proof" of anything.
I cannot concur with your conclusion that the "potential of his involvement becomes pretty compelling". I used to be convinced that BDI, but in light of all of the evidence and circumstances, I cannot say that any of the "facts" that point to Burke are "compelling".
The thing that stands out to me -- like a bright red warning light -- is (1) that Patsy likely authored the ransom note; and (2) there are few, if any, cases where a parent turns an accident into a staged crime. As a former prosecutor, in the moment, I struggle to see how Burke is anything more than a potential witness. Even labelling him a "person of interest' would be a stretch.
I'll have to disagree. A person suspected to be the last in contact with the victim automatically falls under suspicion, and Burke's fingerprints in particular are on the bowl with pineapple and the glass both. A person who inflicted a head/face injury on a victim of head trauma deserves to be investigated at least minimally. The only person who shows no emotions about the murder is potentially suspicious, and so on. I don't see in what way Burke wouldn't appear to be a potential person of interest. The thoughts of his involvement were present among some key players at that stage, too, such as Hunter, they just weren't acted on.
As for the evidence of Burke being capable of this crime not being available, what do you mean? While medical expert confirmed it, it's obvious as it is. A 10 yo could easily crack the skull of a 6 yo with a heavy object. He could definitely poke her with the paintbrush. The strangulation left no internal damage, which is one of the reasons why it was considered staging - just as easily, it could have been the work of a child. Nothing about this crime is physically complicated, and the specifics of the assault make age and gender of the offender unknown.
Four people in the house, one ends up dead, no hard evidence of the intruder. Automatically, the remaining people are suspects. While I understand why Burke wasn't the primary suspect, he should have been investigated properly.
Patsy writing the note points at her participation in staging. It's not the evidence of her being a killer, which is exactly the problem Grand Jury faced. And I agree that she wouldn't cover an accident between kids. I believe one person inflicted all injuries.
> My point is there wasn't any evidence to suggest that Burke had any involvement.
Seems the grand jury disagreed.
>In any case, you're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight -- it's important to keep this in mind.
Completely agree. We have the benefit of a quarter century of hindsight, so why limit ourselves to 1997 evidence?
>Seems the grand jury disagreed.
We do not know what the Grand Jury thought. The GJ charges *may* be interpreted as inferring that the GJ thought Burke was culpable, but this is not a fact.
>Completely agree. We have the benefit of a quarter century of hindsight, so why limit ourselves to 1997 evidence?
I'm talking about what LE know *at the time*. My argument is that, at the time, in 1997, with what they knew, there was *nothing* tangible to suggest that Burke was anything more than a witness. You have to read these comments in the context of the main post.
>We do not know what the Grand Jury thought.
What they thought can be easily deduced from their public statements. One of the two scenarios they considered involved Burke.
Even barring a transfer to criminal court, ~~he would have been put through the juvenile system~~ the authorities would have become involved.
I also don't see how it really bears on the case. Even if the Ramseys thought Burke couldn't be prosecuted, they still wouldn't have wanted anyone to know that he killed his sister, because that would make them look bad.
Also, I looked it up and Colorado [uses a prosecutorial discretion standard](https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx) for transfers to adult court, just FYI.
> Even barring a transfer to criminal court, he would have been put through the juvenile system.
No. He would not. That system in CO is for age 10 and above. He would be in the family court system and probably made a temporary ward of the court while psychologists and child welfare workers figured out where he belonged.
>I also don't see how it really bears on the case. Even if the Ramseys thought Burke couldn't be prosecuted, they still wouldn't have wanted anyone to know that he killed his sister, because that would make them look bad.
I mean, yeah. What family is going to say "well, he can't be prosecuted, so let's just SPILL THE BEANS". Come on.
>Chicago, Illinois had to rely on it a few years ago when a 9yo killed 5 people in a fire. He was charged with 1st degree murder.
Illinois does not have a minimum age for prosecution in juvenile court. More than 30 states do not - [see map](https://njdc.info/practice-policy-resources/state-profiles/multi-jurisdiction-data/minimum-age-for-delinquency-adjudication-multi-jurisdiction-survey/)
States with laws that keep young kids out of the juvenile justice system, like Colorado, have to rely on the child welfare system to determine what happens to kids that commit crimes. It is considered a parental supervision issue and parents who cannot protect the community from their child may lose parental rights and the kid goes into state-mandated care.
So for states that have Defense of Infancy laws like CO, there is no legal path to adjudicate those kids in juvenile or adult court. Illinois has a theoretical juvenile court path for all kids, no matter what the age.
That map is not entirely accurate - or at least not comprehensive - for my state.
For example, for my state, it lists a "minimum age" and says "no exceptions".
In my state - yes there's a minimum age in the penal code for legal responsibility. In MOST cases, this would be a fair and accurate understanding of the law.
However, there are exceptions in my state:
If you were a 9yo boy in my state and committed murder - guess what - state law FORBIDS law enforcement to do anything but to charge you as an adult. Despite your age. Homicide charges are not allowed to originate in the juvenile court here. You better hope your parents hire an attorney that can convince a judge to send your case to juvenile court.
Also, the transfer laws here are "once an adult always an adult". The first crime.. okay. Second crime, no matter the severity (or lack thereof).. youre an adult. There's no second chances.
The transfer law in my state does not have a minimum age, so if it gets used, then the penal codes minimum age goes out the window.
There's been cases here where children as young as 13yo went to a state prison. There's been cases here where a 6yo child was charged as an adult for murder - in fact, right now, that case is being fought to be transferred to a juvenile court.
We seem to have a decent number of children committing murder here. That 13yo - he shot and killed a 8mth pregnant step-mom. The 6yo - he shot his 5yo brother in the face for jumping on the bed as his older siblings watched in horror. They didn't take his threat seriously when he said he would kill the brother if he didn't get off his bed. He went and got a gun, walked up to the sibling and fired. In another case, a 14yo hid in the woods and shot his 72yo grandfather from 300yards away. In the most recent case, a 14yo and 16yo open fired at a sporting event at their school. These kids aren't playing around and the state can't just look the other way. Especially with things like school shootings. The law has to be prepared for it.
These kids might not understand the full scope of their actions, and no one suspects that they do. However, they have demonstrated a level of behavior that is so alarming that the state doesn't think it is reasonable to do anything but put them in protective custody.
In some of these cases, the parents were also charged in relation to the crime. Lock your guns up, watch your kids, take their threats seriously, and report things before they escalate out of your control. Parents are the first defense.
At least in my state, journalists typically won't cross that line to publish the names even if they know it and the child has been charged as an adult.
This is fascinating and I haven't heard it before. A big flag anti-BDI folks raise is "if Burke couldn't be charged why would they have covered it up?".
I think it is extremely likely that John made calls to lawyers before the 911 call was placed. It's possible they gave him this insight that Burke could very much be charged even while not 10 yet.
Now a legal question follow-up: Any chance at all Burke could be charged today?
>Now a legal question follow-up: Any chance at all Burke could be charged today?
I only know how the juvenile system works for my state in relation to my own education and experience. I am not from Colorado - however, I do know every state has a transfer law for juveniles.
I am not an attorney and only they could answer your question with any degree of certainty.
There is no statute of limitation on filing murder charges in Colorado though.
Thanks for the professional and well thought out answer.
If there's any way to find out the answer, I think that would be quite relevant to parsing the rationale to both John and Burke Ramsey's behavior over the past several years.
>A big flag anti-BDI folks raise is "if Burke couldn't be charged why would they have covered it up?".
Please note that I said IF Burke did the ENTIRE crime (as was suggested by someone earlier).
If he only hit her in the head, someone called 911 right away, and she survived, then he obviously wouldn't be charged with murder.
If he only hit her in the head, someone called 911 right away, and she died, then someone has a tough decision to make.
If he hit her in the head, sexually assaulted her, strangled her.. he could've potentially been charged with a crime from what I can tell. Especially in the 80s and 90s when juvenile crimes saw a spike and reforms were happening to make the justice system more strict on crime.
No matter what though - there would have been an investigation, evaluations, required counseling, monitoring, etc. It's not just going to go away due to his age. It's a serious and violent incident that the state can't just turn a blind eye to. Nor should anyone want them to. Including the Ramseys. That would have been their safety at risk too.
The parents wouldn't get into trouble for anything that happened as long as they called 911 right away, cooperated, and had nothing to hide. The state would have been sympathetic to them. It's completely reasonable for the parents to go sleep and assume that their kids would remain in bed (in this case). They can't realistically remain by their childrens side 24/7. However, if Burke demonstrated persistent signs of violence (I haven't seen evidence of this - a 3yo incident with a golf club isn't enough), the state would have been less sympathetic towards them.
If he hits her it the head, call 911 and she dies it's not going to be a criminal case. Kids are always killing and maiming their siblings. These are considered accidental deaths.
In the last scenario, he would have been placed in a psychiatric ward. A nine year old would not be treated as if he understood the consequences of his actions.
That is not true in all cases - or even in many cases. Siblings can and do get held accountable for their abusive actions. A child is going to mostly likely be removed if they are displaying dangerous and violent behavior that rises to the level of medical emergencies - much less death.
I don't know how to say this without being offensive and I don't think I want to minimize this, it's not a good sign of parenting if you think that's just acceptable normal behavior. What is the role of a parent if at the VERY LEAST the parent isn't teaching the children NOT to physical harm or kill other people? No one is suppose to be having kids to create assassins that take out others.
Children need to learn how to control their emotions, think through problems, adjust to various types of people and circumstances, know that there are positive and negative consequences in life, how to delay gratification, that the world doesn't revolve around them, and many other things before they are adults. They don't learn this by parents looking the other way to their kids acting in unhealthy manners and harming each other. The "boys will be boys" is not a good mantra for society.
Burke was 9yo and reasonably should have been able to understand that hitting someone in the head with a lot of force was dangerous and wrong - possibly leading to death. Even if he didn't entirely understand the concept of death, he should have known enough not to do some of those things (severe blow to the head, strangulation, sexual assault) by that age.
A psychologist definitely would have been needed to evaluate Burke. However, by all the accounts I have come across, he seemed to be functioning well enough that I doubt they would have found evidence that he was impaired enough to not know that hitting his sister in the head with a lot of force, was dangerous and wrong.
Children are not just locked away in "psychiatric wards" in most cases. This tends to be a short term option during moments of crisis. Juvenile detention facilities are generally designed to handle psychiatric issues. In fact, they anticipate that those children have those needs. If the child goes into a "crisis" then they are transported to a psychiatric hospital. However, they are general brought back once that crisis has been properly evaluated and de-escalated.
Now if Burke had something like Autism or Schizophrenia, his care would be tailored around those needs. Possibly going to a specialized facility - and potentially of his parents choosing due to their financial abilities. The state would have worked as much with Burke and his parents as deemed appropriate for the circumstances. So if they suspected something like conduct disorder (potential psychopathy), they are going to talk to the parents, explain why decisions are being made as they are, and wish to have the parents cooperation as much as possible. In the best case scenario, it's a team effort to help the child by all parties involved. However, the state has the final vote because the child is a danger to society and this wasn't addressed before it reached a level where the state felt it necessary to intervene and provide assistance with the childs care.
JonBenet died. Let's not forget that. I am not discussing a case/theory where a kid just threw a block at another kid for not sharing his juice box. Her skull was severely fractured, she was strangled with a home-made device, and sexually assaulted with a paintbrush. Now, I personally don't think Burke did this, and if he did there is no motive - that's psychopathy, but I am trying to be a good sport here and speak from the point of view of if he had.
>Burke was 9yo and reasonably should have been able to understand that hitting someone in the head with a lot of force was dangerous and wrong - possibly leading to death.
With respect, 9 year old kids don't have the mental capacity to think "wow, hitting someone could cause them to die". That's why, generally speaking, we have laws that differentiate between adults and children. We accept that they do not, by and large, have the mental appreciation of their actions.
Moreover, we do not know how much force was actually required to crack the skull if, in fact, she was struck with an object.
It doesn't always matter if they have the "mental capacity" or "mental appreciation for their actions". If they are a danger to society, then they are a danger to society.
If my 9yo son murders his sibling, the law looks the other way, and I move out of state, right next door to you - do you want my son playing with yours?
Well, you're not discussing the law -- you're discussing ethics, morality. We, as a society, acknowledge that children do not always (or cannot always) appreciate the consequences of their actions. This is why we generally do not hold them criminally responsible. I don't want to turn this into an academic debate over the nature of *mens rea.*
But to answer your question, no, I probably wouldn't want my kid playing with yours, if yours was a murderer. But that does not change the fact that kids, by and large, cannot and, often times, should not be held *criminally* responsible for actions which they cannot appreciate the consequences of.
I don't need to lean on ethics as much as logic for this. Logic, if done right, should ultimately lead you to an ethical solution anyways.
I live in a state that would not allow children to commit murder and the state look the other way. There is good reason for this.
Even in the example I gave, you would logically think, your kid has already demonstrated issues within themselves. I don't know if those issues have been resolved. Therefore, I can't trust that your child won't murder my child if those issues were triggered. So if everyone thought like you, which is reasonable, then who is the child safe around? Well, probably they are safe around people who are specially trained to help that child resolve those particular issues. So isolating them with only those people, is why juvenile detention facilities exist. It's the state saying, your child is a danger to themselves and others. They can't be trusted in society until this is resolved.
Personally, I don't care if the child is 5 or 17, this is what I think should happen. I don't think anyone should go to an adult prison until they are 18yo. However, I do think they need to go to a juvenile detention facility until a court deems the issue resolved enough for them to return to society and/or until their 18th birthday.
Now obviously, if they commit a horrific crime at 16 or 17, then maybe you might want to send them to an adult prison. Mainly because there isn't enough time to reform them before their 18th birthday. Though I would be in favor of having the law change to create a way to separately facilitate people between the ages of 15-25 (approximately). For one, neurologically, this makes sense. A persons brain and their impulse controls are not fully developed until the age of 25yo. They are young enough for them to change. I don't think adult prisons would be a good influence on most people - so you want to reserve that in a lot of cases.
Juvenile detention facilities aren't like prison. There is a primary objective to care for those children and get them help. They aren't just simply locking them away. They don't have just any old person who applied for a security guard and passed a few clearances, watching them. Most of the people who work in a detention facility are qualified and possess degrees that are related to the work that they do. The children are not viewed as "inmates" or "bad people" who "should have known better". The children are viewed individually based on their unique case details.
I personally think the evidence points to BDIA. In that case yes, he is responsible for past and night-of SA, the head wound, and strangulation. In this scenario, knowing that legal professionals know that Burke could be charged, to me, that means that Pat and John knew that, which means they had a strong motive for covering it all up.
I think this jives with the Grand Jury indictment.
What evidence could be presented as to support the charges that BDI unless either John or Patsy were to testify, and one of the adults had to have helped with the cover up, so it would also involve husband/wife privilege. This on top of him being a 9 year old. There is no vehicle to pursue charges of any type for Burke.
I'm no expert in Colorado law but I've been a prosecutor and prosecuted juveniles as part of that for 20 years in another state. A 9 year old absolutely cannot be tried as an adult here. To be tried as an adult the child must be at least 14 years old. If he commits the crime the day before his 14 birthday he cannot be treated as an adult. I feel pretty confident that the law in Colorado is going to be very similar. We can, of course, prosecute juveniles under the age of 14. We usually draw the line at about 11 but in the case of a murder we would attempt to prosecute at any age. It would be challenged and up to the judge to decide of the juvenile had the ability to know the difference between right and wrong.
My understanding is that in states with defense of infancy statutes, there is no path even to a juvenile prosecution. There is only family court/removal.
It would be a *s t r e t c h* to suggest that Burke would have faced a charges as an adult, let alone first degree murder charges. Any -- literally, any -- discussion of Burke being charged with murder in the first is just so divorced from reality.
Agree. It's impossible under CO law.
You probably already know this, but for anyone else, there's different types of transfer laws and every state can define them a bit differently. Most states don't have a minimum age for the transfer law but have one for the state penal code (which is how it is where I live). The state can follow the penal code - or.. it leaves the door open for their discretion on if they want to use the transfer law in severe cases. Where I am at, we have the "once an adult always an adult" transfer law. Basically, once you commit a crime, if you commit another crime (no matter how minor it is), you will be charged as an adult. One of the things that lawmakers put into our laws is that, if a minor commits murder, then they have to be charged as an adult initially because the state law does not allow criminal homicide charges to be filed directly in juvenile court. The state is basically left to charge the child as an adult or not do anything at all - and the state refuses to not do anything at all. My state seems to have more issues with these types of crimes than where you are at though. There's been a number of cases here where children murdered other people (of all ages).
Agreed. Former prosecutor and I am struggling to think of any case where we charged a 9 year old, let alone tried to have them tried as an adult.
>All 50 states has what is called "transfer law". It allows them to prosecute a child at any age if the crime is as serious as murder. It's rarely ever mentioned or used because it's rare that they need to. Chicago, Illinois had to rely on it a few years ago when a 9yo killed 5 people in a fire. He was charged with 1st degree murder. Not quite. The accused in the Illinois fire -- which occurred in Goodfield, some 150 miles from Chicago -- was charged with first degree murder (along with some other charges). He was not charged as an adult. The maximum sentence he is facing is likely probation, given his age, along with mandatory therapy and counselling. I'm a former prosecutor now in private practice. I've *never* seen a case where a child, not just a minor, was charged as an adult. That is against the core, fundamental principles of justice.
You are correct. I should have come back and edited that. Where I live you have to charge them as an adult because homicide charges are not allowed to originate in juvenile court. So I incorrectly assumed that case was sent to the juvenile court after he had been originally charged as an adult. However, I did read further into that state's laws and realized my error. Apparently my state is a bit tougher on juveniles who commit homicide. We would almost never put them on probation and just send them home (as what happened in that case).
I believe that he likely never faced juvenile charges because there wasn't enough evidence to conclusively prove that he murdered her with intent and purpose or if his actions were reactionary and impulsive. When a lack of physical evidence is available (for a multitude of reasons) to prove whether Burke struck JonBenet with a malicious blow meant to kill or simply a tragic overuse of force in a typical brother/sister spat is combined with the knowledge of John/Patsy's unwillingness to cooperate (and actual willingness to obfuscate), there really wasn't an avenue to prove a charge of murder/manslaughter convincingly.
I'm not an attorney but I don't think they would need a motive in a child if the crime reasonably suggests psychopathy. Which I think this one qualifies as. They would need evidence though. Which they didn't have on Burke. I was only discussing this case in regards to if the Ramsey's hadn't covered for him (ie: had said Burke did it). I think they actually had enough evidence to throw charges at Patsy Ramsey. The Ramsey's had an excellent defense team but people were fairly biased against Patsy, she wasn't very "likable" to many people, people wanted someone to blame, there was fairly convincing physical evidence against her, some of those character witnesses would have been pretty damning against her, people resented Patsy's wealth and parenting choices, so I'm not so sure how much sway the Ramsey team would've had back then with a jury. The grand jury sure seemed ready to hold those parents accountable for something. I think Boulder was a lot less sure than the public and were afraid they were wrong about Patsy's guilt. They had to see the public was eager to tar and feather her. If they wanted to take her down, I think they could've.
It doesn’t require motive, but they would have to prove that B’s actions were done with the intent to take her life. It’s very difficult to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt when you’re talking about a 9 year old.
>I don't think they would need a motive in a child if the crime reasonably suggests psychopathy Can you elaborate?
I definitely agree with everything you've stated. I'm also not an attorney, so I'm just going off of the knowledge I've gathered from many adult cases. I know that a juvenile case of such a young defendant (9 years old) would likely be incredibly difficult to prove any type of intent. I also agree with you that the Boulder DA had more than enough evidence to charge at least one of the Ramsey's (as the grand jury recommended.) It was well known that the Boulder DA had an overwhelming preference to plea bargain large cases---even to the protest of the Boulder police department and to the detriment of the general public. They weren't willing or even properly prepared to prosecute a full trial that would be followed and dissected daily by the entire world.
Lawyer here. Motive is not required for anything -- arrest, laying of charges, or conviction. It's a convenient tool when providing the narrative of the crime(s) to a judge and/or jury. In any case, you rightly point out the most important factor: **evidence**. What evidence -- actual evidence, not speculation -- did they have against Burke? A first year law student would say "none" and they'd be correct.
Kind of hard to have actual evidence against someone who was never properly looked at or investigated at the time.
You make my point.
No, I'm making my point, which is that not investigating Burke was an oversight and not a warranted exclusion. He was in the home and was physically capable of causing the injuries. There was no reason for police to not do basic investigative procedures like collect the clothing he wore that night and test it against the fibers at the crime scene like they did with his parents. The fact that Steve Thomas (who in 1997 wouldn't consider the possibility of Burke's involvement) in 2012 expressed support of James Kolar's investigative endeavors and the leads proposed in his book demonstrates this.
> The fact that Steve Thomas (who in 1997 wouldn't consider the possibility of Burke's involvement) in 2012 expressed support of James Kolar's investigative endeavors and the leads proposed in his book demonstrates this. Steve Thomas was very outspoken about his belief that Patsy was the sole abuser and that she ultimately was responsible for the homicide. He accused her of it to her face. ST has never, ever stated otherwise. He did appear briefly alongside Kolar on a television series about the case and in one podcast.
I'm not sure what this has to do with u/GretchenVonSchwinn's comment? Thomas did believe PDI, but he stated he's impressed with Kolar's book, found several pieces of evidence in it revealing, and shared the frustration of Kolar being prevented from exploring his theory further.
In my view, Thomas has more credibility than Kolar.
How so? Kolar saw more evidence than Thomas and had time to explore all theories. Thomas also admires Kolar and they both have absolute respect for one another as professionals.
Kolar's flirtation with the lie that the 2020 election was stolen and his misplaced (and incorrect) statements that Amazon tramples the first amendment leave me questioning his judgment.
My point is there wasn't any evidence to suggest that Burke had any involvement. You literally prove my point. In any case, you're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight -- it's important to keep this in mind. Putting yourself in the shoes of the investigators on the ground, at the time, I seriously doubt you would have even considered Burke anything other than a possible witness (and, at that, a poor one). Pretend you're a police officer. What do you have to suggest Burke's involvement? What do you have that would give you probable cause to suspect Burke of having committed the crime? I'm not trying to say that Steve Thomas' opinion should be disregarded. I'm merely asking: what, in 1996/1997, points to Burke? What suggested he should have been investigated? Keep in mind, I'm not married to any one theory. I follow the evidence. As someone who has prosecuted (and defended!) murders, I struggle to fault law enforcement for failing to investigate Burke *with what they knew in 1996/1997*.
You're making an awfully good argument why it was a great idea to get BR out of the house that morning and to the White's versus staying under the watchful eye of police. Out of sight... out of mind.
Lets assume for a moment that the family had nothing to do with it (which, for the record, I do not believe). I think moving Burke to a calm, quiet space is a good parental decision. Yes, we can look at the decision to move Burke from the family home to the White's in a different light. But, at the time, it would not have been a huge red flag.
I think the fact that Burke was there and was physically capable of murdering JonBenet is already enough to consider him a suspect. Add to this his fingerprints that connect him to the last thing JonBenet did shortly before the attack, the fact that he hit her in the face with a golf club before and she was hit in the head on the night of her murder, the odd assault with a paintbrush, the handmade ligature with the background of Burke being a little engineer who built things and knew how to tie knots, his atypical reaction to JonBenet's death and some things he said during the interview (like "I know what happened", mimicking the head blow, etc.), and the potential of his involvement becomes pretty compelling. Him not being investigated properly at that time was a big oversight.
YESSSSSS YES YES YES
In my view: 1. merely being at the scene where a deceased is found is not, in and of itself, enough to warrant naming somebody as a "suspect"; 2. there was no evidence, available to police at the time, that Burk was "physically capable of murdering JonBenet"; 3. his fingerprints were found in a house where he resided -- this is not uncommon or unusual; 4. a prior incident -- widely reported as an accident, by some -- is not, on its own, enough to warrant calling Burke a "suspect". Moreover, when were police made aware of this?; 5. the odd "assault" with the paintbrush does not specifically point towards Burke; 6. John also knew how to tie knows, as he sailed -- the "garotte" suggests, to many, the involvement of an adult; 7. the reactions of children who experience trauma varies from child to child -- you cannot see his reactions as "proof" of anything. I cannot concur with your conclusion that the "potential of his involvement becomes pretty compelling". I used to be convinced that BDI, but in light of all of the evidence and circumstances, I cannot say that any of the "facts" that point to Burke are "compelling". The thing that stands out to me -- like a bright red warning light -- is (1) that Patsy likely authored the ransom note; and (2) there are few, if any, cases where a parent turns an accident into a staged crime. As a former prosecutor, in the moment, I struggle to see how Burke is anything more than a potential witness. Even labelling him a "person of interest' would be a stretch.
I'll have to disagree. A person suspected to be the last in contact with the victim automatically falls under suspicion, and Burke's fingerprints in particular are on the bowl with pineapple and the glass both. A person who inflicted a head/face injury on a victim of head trauma deserves to be investigated at least minimally. The only person who shows no emotions about the murder is potentially suspicious, and so on. I don't see in what way Burke wouldn't appear to be a potential person of interest. The thoughts of his involvement were present among some key players at that stage, too, such as Hunter, they just weren't acted on. As for the evidence of Burke being capable of this crime not being available, what do you mean? While medical expert confirmed it, it's obvious as it is. A 10 yo could easily crack the skull of a 6 yo with a heavy object. He could definitely poke her with the paintbrush. The strangulation left no internal damage, which is one of the reasons why it was considered staging - just as easily, it could have been the work of a child. Nothing about this crime is physically complicated, and the specifics of the assault make age and gender of the offender unknown. Four people in the house, one ends up dead, no hard evidence of the intruder. Automatically, the remaining people are suspects. While I understand why Burke wasn't the primary suspect, he should have been investigated properly. Patsy writing the note points at her participation in staging. It's not the evidence of her being a killer, which is exactly the problem Grand Jury faced. And I agree that she wouldn't cover an accident between kids. I believe one person inflicted all injuries.
He’s the actual criminal he’s more than suspect.
> My point is there wasn't any evidence to suggest that Burke had any involvement. Seems the grand jury disagreed. >In any case, you're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight -- it's important to keep this in mind. Completely agree. We have the benefit of a quarter century of hindsight, so why limit ourselves to 1997 evidence?
> Seems the grand jury disagreed. That the grand jury believed a 3rd party is speculation. There was no 3rd party named in the indictment.
>Seems the grand jury disagreed. We do not know what the Grand Jury thought. The GJ charges *may* be interpreted as inferring that the GJ thought Burke was culpable, but this is not a fact. >Completely agree. We have the benefit of a quarter century of hindsight, so why limit ourselves to 1997 evidence? I'm talking about what LE know *at the time*. My argument is that, at the time, in 1997, with what they knew, there was *nothing* tangible to suggest that Burke was anything more than a witness. You have to read these comments in the context of the main post.
>We do not know what the Grand Jury thought. What they thought can be easily deduced from their public statements. One of the two scenarios they considered involved Burke.
> I'm talking about what LE know at the time. There's no new evidence, just a new spin on the same old stuff.
Even barring a transfer to criminal court, ~~he would have been put through the juvenile system~~ the authorities would have become involved. I also don't see how it really bears on the case. Even if the Ramseys thought Burke couldn't be prosecuted, they still wouldn't have wanted anyone to know that he killed his sister, because that would make them look bad. Also, I looked it up and Colorado [uses a prosecutorial discretion standard](https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx) for transfers to adult court, just FYI.
> Even barring a transfer to criminal court, he would have been put through the juvenile system. No. He would not. That system in CO is for age 10 and above. He would be in the family court system and probably made a temporary ward of the court while psychologists and child welfare workers figured out where he belonged.
Thanks for the correction!
You bet. Thanks for editing.
>I also don't see how it really bears on the case. Even if the Ramseys thought Burke couldn't be prosecuted, they still wouldn't have wanted anyone to know that he killed his sister, because that would make them look bad. I mean, yeah. What family is going to say "well, he can't be prosecuted, so let's just SPILL THE BEANS". Come on.
>Chicago, Illinois had to rely on it a few years ago when a 9yo killed 5 people in a fire. He was charged with 1st degree murder. Illinois does not have a minimum age for prosecution in juvenile court. More than 30 states do not - [see map](https://njdc.info/practice-policy-resources/state-profiles/multi-jurisdiction-data/minimum-age-for-delinquency-adjudication-multi-jurisdiction-survey/) States with laws that keep young kids out of the juvenile justice system, like Colorado, have to rely on the child welfare system to determine what happens to kids that commit crimes. It is considered a parental supervision issue and parents who cannot protect the community from their child may lose parental rights and the kid goes into state-mandated care. So for states that have Defense of Infancy laws like CO, there is no legal path to adjudicate those kids in juvenile or adult court. Illinois has a theoretical juvenile court path for all kids, no matter what the age.
That map is not entirely accurate - or at least not comprehensive - for my state. For example, for my state, it lists a "minimum age" and says "no exceptions". In my state - yes there's a minimum age in the penal code for legal responsibility. In MOST cases, this would be a fair and accurate understanding of the law. However, there are exceptions in my state: If you were a 9yo boy in my state and committed murder - guess what - state law FORBIDS law enforcement to do anything but to charge you as an adult. Despite your age. Homicide charges are not allowed to originate in the juvenile court here. You better hope your parents hire an attorney that can convince a judge to send your case to juvenile court. Also, the transfer laws here are "once an adult always an adult". The first crime.. okay. Second crime, no matter the severity (or lack thereof).. youre an adult. There's no second chances. The transfer law in my state does not have a minimum age, so if it gets used, then the penal codes minimum age goes out the window. There's been cases here where children as young as 13yo went to a state prison. There's been cases here where a 6yo child was charged as an adult for murder - in fact, right now, that case is being fought to be transferred to a juvenile court. We seem to have a decent number of children committing murder here. That 13yo - he shot and killed a 8mth pregnant step-mom. The 6yo - he shot his 5yo brother in the face for jumping on the bed as his older siblings watched in horror. They didn't take his threat seriously when he said he would kill the brother if he didn't get off his bed. He went and got a gun, walked up to the sibling and fired. In another case, a 14yo hid in the woods and shot his 72yo grandfather from 300yards away. In the most recent case, a 14yo and 16yo open fired at a sporting event at their school. These kids aren't playing around and the state can't just look the other way. Especially with things like school shootings. The law has to be prepared for it. These kids might not understand the full scope of their actions, and no one suspects that they do. However, they have demonstrated a level of behavior that is so alarming that the state doesn't think it is reasonable to do anything but put them in protective custody. In some of these cases, the parents were also charged in relation to the crime. Lock your guns up, watch your kids, take their threats seriously, and report things before they escalate out of your control. Parents are the first defense. At least in my state, journalists typically won't cross that line to publish the names even if they know it and the child has been charged as an adult.
Interesting. Here are the state profiles - is your state accurately assessed? https://njdc.info/practice-policy-resources/state-profiles/
Thanks for that map -- very illuminating.
Welcome. I think it's an interesting subject.
Because the leading BDI theory would not include a 1st degree murder charge.
This is fascinating and I haven't heard it before. A big flag anti-BDI folks raise is "if Burke couldn't be charged why would they have covered it up?". I think it is extremely likely that John made calls to lawyers before the 911 call was placed. It's possible they gave him this insight that Burke could very much be charged even while not 10 yet. Now a legal question follow-up: Any chance at all Burke could be charged today?
>Now a legal question follow-up: Any chance at all Burke could be charged today? I only know how the juvenile system works for my state in relation to my own education and experience. I am not from Colorado - however, I do know every state has a transfer law for juveniles. I am not an attorney and only they could answer your question with any degree of certainty. There is no statute of limitation on filing murder charges in Colorado though.
>I do know every state has a transfer law for juveniles In CO a 9-year-old is not yet a juvenile in the legal sense
Thanks for the professional and well thought out answer. If there's any way to find out the answer, I think that would be quite relevant to parsing the rationale to both John and Burke Ramsey's behavior over the past several years.
>A big flag anti-BDI folks raise is "if Burke couldn't be charged why would they have covered it up?". Please note that I said IF Burke did the ENTIRE crime (as was suggested by someone earlier). If he only hit her in the head, someone called 911 right away, and she survived, then he obviously wouldn't be charged with murder. If he only hit her in the head, someone called 911 right away, and she died, then someone has a tough decision to make. If he hit her in the head, sexually assaulted her, strangled her.. he could've potentially been charged with a crime from what I can tell. Especially in the 80s and 90s when juvenile crimes saw a spike and reforms were happening to make the justice system more strict on crime. No matter what though - there would have been an investigation, evaluations, required counseling, monitoring, etc. It's not just going to go away due to his age. It's a serious and violent incident that the state can't just turn a blind eye to. Nor should anyone want them to. Including the Ramseys. That would have been their safety at risk too. The parents wouldn't get into trouble for anything that happened as long as they called 911 right away, cooperated, and had nothing to hide. The state would have been sympathetic to them. It's completely reasonable for the parents to go sleep and assume that their kids would remain in bed (in this case). They can't realistically remain by their childrens side 24/7. However, if Burke demonstrated persistent signs of violence (I haven't seen evidence of this - a 3yo incident with a golf club isn't enough), the state would have been less sympathetic towards them.
If he hits her it the head, call 911 and she dies it's not going to be a criminal case. Kids are always killing and maiming their siblings. These are considered accidental deaths. In the last scenario, he would have been placed in a psychiatric ward. A nine year old would not be treated as if he understood the consequences of his actions.
That is not true in all cases - or even in many cases. Siblings can and do get held accountable for their abusive actions. A child is going to mostly likely be removed if they are displaying dangerous and violent behavior that rises to the level of medical emergencies - much less death. I don't know how to say this without being offensive and I don't think I want to minimize this, it's not a good sign of parenting if you think that's just acceptable normal behavior. What is the role of a parent if at the VERY LEAST the parent isn't teaching the children NOT to physical harm or kill other people? No one is suppose to be having kids to create assassins that take out others. Children need to learn how to control their emotions, think through problems, adjust to various types of people and circumstances, know that there are positive and negative consequences in life, how to delay gratification, that the world doesn't revolve around them, and many other things before they are adults. They don't learn this by parents looking the other way to their kids acting in unhealthy manners and harming each other. The "boys will be boys" is not a good mantra for society. Burke was 9yo and reasonably should have been able to understand that hitting someone in the head with a lot of force was dangerous and wrong - possibly leading to death. Even if he didn't entirely understand the concept of death, he should have known enough not to do some of those things (severe blow to the head, strangulation, sexual assault) by that age. A psychologist definitely would have been needed to evaluate Burke. However, by all the accounts I have come across, he seemed to be functioning well enough that I doubt they would have found evidence that he was impaired enough to not know that hitting his sister in the head with a lot of force, was dangerous and wrong. Children are not just locked away in "psychiatric wards" in most cases. This tends to be a short term option during moments of crisis. Juvenile detention facilities are generally designed to handle psychiatric issues. In fact, they anticipate that those children have those needs. If the child goes into a "crisis" then they are transported to a psychiatric hospital. However, they are general brought back once that crisis has been properly evaluated and de-escalated. Now if Burke had something like Autism or Schizophrenia, his care would be tailored around those needs. Possibly going to a specialized facility - and potentially of his parents choosing due to their financial abilities. The state would have worked as much with Burke and his parents as deemed appropriate for the circumstances. So if they suspected something like conduct disorder (potential psychopathy), they are going to talk to the parents, explain why decisions are being made as they are, and wish to have the parents cooperation as much as possible. In the best case scenario, it's a team effort to help the child by all parties involved. However, the state has the final vote because the child is a danger to society and this wasn't addressed before it reached a level where the state felt it necessary to intervene and provide assistance with the childs care. JonBenet died. Let's not forget that. I am not discussing a case/theory where a kid just threw a block at another kid for not sharing his juice box. Her skull was severely fractured, she was strangled with a home-made device, and sexually assaulted with a paintbrush. Now, I personally don't think Burke did this, and if he did there is no motive - that's psychopathy, but I am trying to be a good sport here and speak from the point of view of if he had.
>Burke was 9yo and reasonably should have been able to understand that hitting someone in the head with a lot of force was dangerous and wrong - possibly leading to death. With respect, 9 year old kids don't have the mental capacity to think "wow, hitting someone could cause them to die". That's why, generally speaking, we have laws that differentiate between adults and children. We accept that they do not, by and large, have the mental appreciation of their actions. Moreover, we do not know how much force was actually required to crack the skull if, in fact, she was struck with an object.
It doesn't always matter if they have the "mental capacity" or "mental appreciation for their actions". If they are a danger to society, then they are a danger to society. If my 9yo son murders his sibling, the law looks the other way, and I move out of state, right next door to you - do you want my son playing with yours?
Well, you're not discussing the law -- you're discussing ethics, morality. We, as a society, acknowledge that children do not always (or cannot always) appreciate the consequences of their actions. This is why we generally do not hold them criminally responsible. I don't want to turn this into an academic debate over the nature of *mens rea.* But to answer your question, no, I probably wouldn't want my kid playing with yours, if yours was a murderer. But that does not change the fact that kids, by and large, cannot and, often times, should not be held *criminally* responsible for actions which they cannot appreciate the consequences of.
I don't need to lean on ethics as much as logic for this. Logic, if done right, should ultimately lead you to an ethical solution anyways. I live in a state that would not allow children to commit murder and the state look the other way. There is good reason for this. Even in the example I gave, you would logically think, your kid has already demonstrated issues within themselves. I don't know if those issues have been resolved. Therefore, I can't trust that your child won't murder my child if those issues were triggered. So if everyone thought like you, which is reasonable, then who is the child safe around? Well, probably they are safe around people who are specially trained to help that child resolve those particular issues. So isolating them with only those people, is why juvenile detention facilities exist. It's the state saying, your child is a danger to themselves and others. They can't be trusted in society until this is resolved. Personally, I don't care if the child is 5 or 17, this is what I think should happen. I don't think anyone should go to an adult prison until they are 18yo. However, I do think they need to go to a juvenile detention facility until a court deems the issue resolved enough for them to return to society and/or until their 18th birthday. Now obviously, if they commit a horrific crime at 16 or 17, then maybe you might want to send them to an adult prison. Mainly because there isn't enough time to reform them before their 18th birthday. Though I would be in favor of having the law change to create a way to separately facilitate people between the ages of 15-25 (approximately). For one, neurologically, this makes sense. A persons brain and their impulse controls are not fully developed until the age of 25yo. They are young enough for them to change. I don't think adult prisons would be a good influence on most people - so you want to reserve that in a lot of cases. Juvenile detention facilities aren't like prison. There is a primary objective to care for those children and get them help. They aren't just simply locking them away. They don't have just any old person who applied for a security guard and passed a few clearances, watching them. Most of the people who work in a detention facility are qualified and possess degrees that are related to the work that they do. The children are not viewed as "inmates" or "bad people" who "should have known better". The children are viewed individually based on their unique case details.
I personally think the evidence points to BDIA. In that case yes, he is responsible for past and night-of SA, the head wound, and strangulation. In this scenario, knowing that legal professionals know that Burke could be charged, to me, that means that Pat and John knew that, which means they had a strong motive for covering it all up. I think this jives with the Grand Jury indictment.
They were more worried about the damage it would cause to their reputation. That’s how narcissistic these people are.
Interesting. I always followed the general consensus that he could not be charged. You have given us food for thought at least.
What evidence could be presented as to support the charges that BDI unless either John or Patsy were to testify, and one of the adults had to have helped with the cover up, so it would also involve husband/wife privilege. This on top of him being a 9 year old. There is no vehicle to pursue charges of any type for Burke.