Boulder police chief exonerates Fleet and Priscilla White in death of JonBenet Ramsey

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

I have been waiting for this...IMO, it should have come years ago. Now, I hope that everyone who bashes the Whites and imply that Fleet and Priscella had anything to do with JBR's murder stop. It wasn't Fleet and his wife that were indicted by the Grand Jury, it was John and Patsy Ramsey. Please pay attention to the bolded part of the statement.

*********************************************************

BOULDER, Colo. - The JonBenet Ramsey murder case took another unusual twist Thursday when Boulder Police Chief Mark R. Beckner issued a formal statement that Fleet White, Jr. is not a suspect in the case -- the second time police have taken that step since JonBenet was murdered in 1996.


Police said the latest statement was made necessary because of "past inaccurate statements and speculation appearing in the media and at the request of Fleet and Priscilla White." The statement did not go into more detail about what prompted it.


"A great deal of that reporting and speculation targeted innocent community members whose only connection to the crime was as cooperating witnesses," Beckner said. "This includes the Fleet White, Jr. family of Boulder who suffered embarrassment and damage to their reputations."


http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...leet-white-jr-again-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder
 
spamelope said:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/bou...ce-chief-exonerates-fleet-and-priscilla-white
Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner released a statement today exonerating Boulder's Fleet and Priscilla White, one of two couples who came to the aid of John and Patsy Ramsey the morning their daughter JonBenet was discovered missing in 1996.
Click to expand...

Why wait until now, almost 20 years later, to do this? Are we to trust the BPD Chief any more than we trust the Boulder AG when she exonerated all the Ramsey's in the murder? If so, why? I'm not saying that FW is guilty of anything, but what kind of meaning should we give this? It means nothing to me.
 
Does anyone think/wonder if this might be a start to more action related to this case somehow? It just seems odd that the BPD even entertains making comments at this point. Perhaps the GJ document release has stimulated some activity?
 
Is it possible that Fleet is concerned that when Paula's book comes out, she or John might do interviews, insinuating that he was involved? So maybe he wanted the recent exoneration so they wouldn't be able to do that? FW requested that the BPD release a statement exonerating him. Of course, the book isn't due out for about 8 months...

I remember John did an interview during his book tour, where he started talking about a former friend...didn't say his name, of course...but for anyone who knows the case well, he was talking about FW.
 
ZBob said:
Does anyone think/wonder if this might be a start to more action related to this case somehow? It just seems odd that the BPD even entertains making comments at this point. Perhaps the GJ document release has stimulated some activity?
Click to expand...

Actually, I think I know why this statement was released. With the recent revelation of the GJ indictments, it is obvious to all (except those who WILL not accept it) that the parents know what happened to JB, and failed to prevent her death at the hands of someone they lied to protect.
Lest people think it was a "friend" they lied to protect (as if any parent of a child killed in that way would lie to protect a friend), the police wanted to re-affirm that the person or persons the Rs lied to protect was NOT the White's. And I think we can all safely assume we know who that person really was, thanks to Chief Kolar and the people who were responsible for getting the GJ indictments released.
 
Forgive me if this is an ignorant question but how likely is it that this case is still being actively investigated? This makes me excited but not prematurely I hope.

I would imagine there are people still devoted to solving this case that have been waiting for a break, or atleast a more advanced forensic team that is still examining would could yield new clues
 
Anyhoo said:
Why wait until now, almost 20 years later, to do this? Are we to trust the BPD Chief any more than we trust the Boulder AG when she exonerated all the Ramsey's in the murder? If so, why? I'm not saying that FW is guilty of anything, but what kind of meaning should we give this? It means nothing to me.
Click to expand...

This link says that this is the THIRD time the White's have been cleared. Three times...

***********************************************************


On April 16, 1997, City of Boulder issued a press release from Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby that said:

"Mr. and Mrs. Fleet White, Jr. are not suspects in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. They are considered key witnesses. The Boulder Police Department appreciates the full cooperation they have received from the Whites since the beginning of their investigation. I feel this response is necessary due to the inaccurate portrayal of Mr. and Mrs. White in certain media publications."


In 2008, then-District Attorney Mary Lacy wrote a letter to the Whites saying they weren't suspects.


Amateur Internet sleuths have tried to link White to JonBenet's murder in the past.


http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...leet-white-jr-again-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder
 
"The Boulder Police Department investigators have always considered the White family to only be witnesses in this case."

this basically only reinforces the fact that the BPD thinks RDI ;) i mean,it's not like FW witnessed something the intruder might have done...

imo

wonder though if something else is behind this and where it's going IF anywhere...

it's seems to be just a stupid ego game lately...sigh...
 
Anyhoo said:
Why wait until now, almost 20 years later, to do this? Are we to trust the BPD Chief any more than we trust the Boulder AG when she exonerated all the Ramsey's in the murder? If so, why? I'm not saying that FW is guilty of anything, but what kind of meaning should we give this? It means nothing to me.
Click to expand...

https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/j...tement-regarding-the-family-of-fleet-white-jr

To correct past inaccurate statements and speculation appearing in the media, and at the request of Fleet and Priscilla White, the Boulder Police Department releases the following statement:
 
it's funny...Lacy,Beckner...all you have to do is be nice and ask to be exonerated!

don't get me wrong,I don't think FW is a suspect or anything,I just don't like how things are done in this case...you can't just exonerate people like this and treat a crime like it's a game or something....

no one should be cleared until there is a conviction

IMO
 
madeleine said:
no one should be cleared until there is a conviction

IMO
Click to expand...

If they have no involvement, they should absolutely be cleared.

The ones who should NOT be cleared before a conviction are people who were indicted by a GJ!
 
Tawny said:
If they have no involvement, they should absolutely be cleared.

The ones who should NOT be cleared before a conviction are people who were indicted by a GJ!
Click to expand...

I agree. Also, as we have seen here, there are people getting interested in this case all the time, in spite of the fact that we are at 17 years and counting. It seems like every time a newbie starts looking some die hard IDI will imply that the White's were involved.

With the release of the GJ findings and the new publicity that is bound to follow I don't blame them for wanting it cleared up again.

I wonder if JR is going to be making a similar to request now? I hope he holds his breath waiting for it this time. Not everyone is as nuts as Lacey.
 
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/bou...ce-chief-exonerates-fleet-and-priscilla-white.

Interesting quote from Fleet White from the article:

In an emailed statement to the Daily Camera, Fleet White said, "We greatly appreciate Chief Beckner and the Boulder Police Department making this statement on behalf of our family.

"Along with the recent release of the 1998-99 Boulder grand jury indictments of John and Patsy Ramsey, we are hopeful Chief Beckner's statement today will further improve the public's understanding of the investigation of JonBenet's death."
Click to expand...


BBM.

Anyone else think he's saying what I think he's saying?
 
Denver defense attorney Dan Recht, who has followed the Ramsey saga closely, was surprised to see the Whites being offered another exoneration in the case.

"I know of absolutely no precedent for anyone ever being officially exonerated three times in one case," Recht said. "I'm wondering out loud what the motivation is for the chief of police to issue a third exoneration."

Recht also said, "In addition, one wonders why the Whites would want to have their names brought to national attention, once again, in association with this case."

exactly.
maybe it's a subtle message for JR?
beware...?
 
Tawny said:
If they have no involvement, they should absolutely be cleared.

The ones who should NOT be cleared before a conviction are people who were indicted by a GJ!
Click to expand...

Amen Sister!

JMO
 
madeleine said:
Denver defense attorney Dan Recht, who has followed the Ramsey saga closely, was surprised to see the Whites being offered another exoneration in the case.

"I know of absolutely no precedent for anyone ever being officially exonerated three times in one case," Recht said. "I'm wondering out loud what the motivation is for the chief of police to issue a third exoneration."

Recht also said, "In addition, one wonders why the Whites would want to have their names brought to national attention, once again, in association with this case."

exactly.
maybe it's a subtle message for JR?
beware...?
Click to expand...

FW wants to be ready should there be ugly innuendo in PW's book next year. He knows who JR is. moo
 
questfortrue said:
FW wants to be ready should there be ugly innuendo in PW's book next year. He knows who JR is. moo
Click to expand...

ah her great book.....

and she says she's objective no?

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/04/paula_woodward_opens_up_--_a_l.php

Woodward also garnered attention for reports about slacking city workers, a jailhouse interview with Willie Clark, who's been accused of murdering Denver Broncos standout Darrent Williams, and, of course, the investigation into the slaying of JonBenét Ramsey. She took plenty of heat over the course of the decade-plus the latter case has made headlines, with critics such as KHOW's Peter Boyles suggesting that she's been in the pocket of John Ramsey and the rest of his family since early on -- hence, her large number of exclusive interviews with them over the years. But she takes great pride in her approach.

"At the very beginning of that story, Patti Dennis, our news director, and I set up rules for covering it -- and one of our rules was that we had to get a source from each side," she recalls. "On that story, it was very difficult to do -- and other news media was not a source. But we made sure that we had to do our double-sourcing, and we went way beyond that. So I've always been very comfortable that we covered the story in a very neutral, very thorough manner. We went over and over every story to make sure that what we were putting out was as accurate as we could make it." She adds that when Boulder District Attorney Mary Keenan decided last year to essentially remove any of the Ramseys from the list of suspects, she saw it as "a culmination of having worked on the story for twelve years."

righttttt.......

more:

http://www.examiner.com/article/jonbenet-ramsey-book-author-hoping-to-be-sued


But as she adds her book to a long list of investigative and speculative accounts of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, Paula Woodward notes that she has one overriding desire. She wants to be sued.

"I hope someone sues me for not getting permission to publish their ransom note."

:facepalm:
 
madeleine said:
<snip>
But as she adds her book to a long list of investigative and speculative accounts of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, Paula Woodward notes that she has one overriding desire. She wants to be sued.

"I hope someone sues me for not getting permission to publish their ransom note."

:facepalm:
Click to expand...

That will kinda be hard to do as the person will wrote the ransom note is dead. Just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 134 more.
Total: 383 (members: 135, guests: 248)

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
248
Total visitors
383
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,818
Messages
18,245,982
Members
234,454
Latest member
CeleO
Back
Top