Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[tipper]

If the Grand Jury found Burke guilty, why would Kane say this in 2000?

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4665

16 MR. KANE: I have never ever,
17 ever -- the only time I have gone on the
18 public record in this case, Lin, was to
19 clear your client, Burke Ramsey, and to tell
20 the world that it was outrageous what they
21 did to Burke Ramsey, and you settled for
22 probably millions a week later.

Again, why would Kane do this if the GJ found Burke culpable? "Clearing" him is more than just protecting his name. Kane would have been sued by the NE since Burke's being cleared was a major factor in their losing the case.

 

[capps]

Eagle1,

Exactly. The only thing the Boulder authorities can do is what they are doing. The case is sealed forever and they can legally lie to prevent the juvenile from being publicly identified.

Included in the Colorado Children's Code is the following:

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

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

Although the age limit for culpable minors may vary from state to state,the content of the Children's Code does not.Names may not be identified,and records are not opened to the public.

The newscaster did not reveal identity,and did not request any records to be released,he did nothing illegal,yet was able to notify the public that someone was apprehended.

This was an option opened for LE,Keenan,and all the rest, to take ... they chose not to.You have to ask yourself why,especially since they want desperately to put this case to bed,and make it go away ... that would have been the perfect "out" for them.

IMO .. this tells me there is no minor involved.Or is the perp not a minor,but the politically powerful powers that be,are trying their damnest to keep it under wraps?

It can also be something quite simple .... there is not enough hard evidence to convict anyone,whether it be a Ramsey or intruder.

Either way BlueCrab ... I believe you and I will always have an eternal "go around" concerning this issue.And that's okay.

 

[capps]

Again, why would Kane do this if the GJ found Burke culpable? "Clearing" him is more than just protecting his name. Kane would have been sued by the NE since Burke's being cleared was a major factor in their losing the case.

Good question Tipper ... I also would like to know.

 

[BlueCrab]

Again, why would Kane do this if the GJ found Burke culpable? "Clearing" him is more than just protecting his name. Kane would have been sued by the NE since Burke's being cleared was a major factor in their losing the case.

tipper,

The National Enquirer did not lose the case. It was settled. The Ramseys never won any of the cases involving Burke. I doubt that even as much as a nickel exchanged hands when the cases were settled.

Burke Ramsey has never been publicly cleared by anyone in an official capacity in Boulder. Mike Kane's off-the-cuff personal remark to Lin Wood does not clear Burke. Neither John, nor Patsy, nor Burke have ever been cleared.

BlueCrab

 

[Zman]

tipper,

The National Enquirer did not lose the case. It was settled. The Ramseys never won any of the cases involving Burke. I doubt that even as much as a nickel exchanged hands when the cases were settled.

Burke Ramsey has never been publicly cleared by anyone in an official capacity in Boulder. Mike Kane's off-the-cuff personal remark to Lin Wood does not clear Burke. Neither John, nor Patsy, nor Burke have ever been cleared.

BlueCrab

I thought they were clearing people with DNA now. Wouldn't JR, PR, JAR and BR be the first DNA they would check?

 

[tipper]

tipper,

The National Enquirer did not lose the case. It was settled. The Ramseys never won any of the cases involving Burke. I doubt that even as much as a nickel exchanged hands when the cases were settled.

Burke Ramsey has never been publicly cleared by anyone in an official capacity in Boulder. Mike Kane's off-the-cuff personal remark to Lin Wood does not clear Burke. Neither John, nor Patsy, nor Burke have ever been cleared.

BlueCrab

We know some money changed hands because Patsy was put in charge of it and there was a legal dispute about paying a Burke lawyer.

Mike Kane clearly does not think Burke is involved and, according to him, has said so publically. He used the word "cleared." Your refusing to acknowledge that as sufficient doesn't change the fact that Kane said he had "cleared" Burke.

 

[BlueCrab]

We know some money changed hands because Patsy was put in charge of it and there was a legal dispute about paying a Burke lawyer.

Mike Kane clearly does not think Burke is involved and, according to him, has said so publically. He used the word "cleared." Your refusing to acknowledge that as sufficient doesn't change the fact that Kane said he had "cleared" Burke.

tipper,

Mike Kane, a Pennsylvanian, was hired by Boulder DA Alex Hunter as a private consultant. As an outside contractor, Kane has no authority to clear Burke Ramsey nor anyone else in Boulder.

 

[tipper]

tipper,

Mike Kane, a Pennsylvanian, was hired by Boulder DA Alex Hunter as a private consultant. As an outside contractor, Kane has no authority to clear Burke Ramsey nor anyone else in Boulder.

BC, you're quibbling. Kane was hired to run the grand jury. He was much more than just a consultant. He knows all the evidence. He "cleared" Burke.

http://community.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1998/17rams.html

Hunter arrived at about 9 a.m. and was soon joined by his three-man grand jury team of Michael Kane, Mitch Morrissey and Bruce Levin.



http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

The Ramseys' attorney, Lin Wood, squared off that night with Michael Kane, who led the 13-month grand jury investigation in Boulder and who was in charge of the Ramsey interviews, in a heated exchange on "Larry King Live" on CNN.



http://www.denver-rmn.com/extra/ramsey/0506jon1.html

[font=Arial,helvetica]Hunter hires consultant on grand jury

Pennsylvania official to help DA decide whether to submit Ramsey case

By Kevin McCullen
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer

[/font]



BOULDER -- District Attorney Alex Hunter has hired a consultant to help him decide whether to take the JonBenet Ramsey murder case to a grand jury.

Michael Kane, deputy secretary for enforcement with the Pennsylvania Revenue Department, has supervised numerous grand jury investigations, Hunter said Tuesday night.

Kane worked for the Denver district attorney's office from 1979 until 1986, serving ultimately as the chief deputy DA. He also has worked for the U.S. Justice Department and the Pennsylvania attorney general's Office.

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail98.asp?ID=48

Running the grand jury which convened in September is Michael Kane, a former Denver prosecutor and grand jury specialist.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1234851,00.html

Kane, 49, joined former District Attorney Alex Hunter's team in June 1998, about 18 months after JonBenet was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her Boulder home.

He led the 13-month-long grand jury probe that concluded Oct. 13, 1999, with no indictments issued in the case.

 

[BlueCrab]

Michael Kane has no authority to clear Burke nor anyone else in Boulder. Burke has never been cleared by Boulder authorities. Only the Boulder DA and the courts have that authority.

 

[BlueCrab]

I thought they were clearing people with DNA now. Wouldn't JR, PR, JAR and BR be the first DNA they would check?

Zman,

It's not quite that simple.

Please remember that the DNA found in JonBenet's panties was mixed. The major component matched JonBenet's DNA; and if the minor component was contributed by a single individual then the other Ramseys could be excluded as the donor. However, if a third individual had contributed to the mix then the Ramseys could not be excluded. Therefore, the Ramseys are only tentatively excluded.

There are a lot of other variables to consider, including the authenticity of the information known to the public. Also, according to the documents flashed on the screen by Michael Tracey in the U.K.,and screen-captured by some of us who post here, apparently DS could not be eliminated as the contributor, even though the Ramseys, the Whites, and Mervin Pugh could be tentatively eliminated. There are other considerations, including Alex Hunter's cryptic comment, "You'd be surprised if you knew who we were investigating now."

We the public don't have the results of the DNA analyses to help determine if there was a fifth person in the house that night who had been invited in by a Ramsey. And that person's DNA is in the mix.

BlueCrab

 

[capps]

If the Grand Jury found Burke guilty, why would Kane say this in 2000?

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4665

16 MR. KANE: I have never ever,
17 ever -- the only time I have gone on the
18 public record in this case, Lin, was to
19 clear your client, Burke Ramsey, and to tell
20 the world that it was outrageous what they
21 did to Burke Ramsey, and you settled for
22 probably millions a week later.

Tipper,

I understand why you would question that.
Although Kane might not have the authority to clear BR,Kane was part of the GJ team ... and if they found him guilty,why would he make the statement above stating otherwise,months after the GJ ended?

The only conclusion IMO that I can come up with is .... maybe BR is not guilty.

 

[BlueCrab]

Tipper,

I understand why you would question that.
Although Kane might not have the authority to clear BR,Kane was part of the GJ team ... and if they found him guilty,why would he make the statement above stating otherwise,months after the GJ ended?

The only conclusion IMO that I can come up with is .... maybe BR is not guilty.

capps,

I agree the Mike Kane comment to Lin Wood is puzzling. It's almost an oxymoron comment because at the Atlanta interviews Kane and the other interrogators (Bruce Levin, Mitch Morrissey, Mark Beckner, Tom Wickman, Tom Trujillo, and Jane Harmer) spent a lot of time trying to substantiate Burke's possible involvement (coverup of BR's Hi-Tec boots, etc.). One other consideration: a lot of time was wasted during those interviews as Lin Wood filibustered the interviews with endless legal gymnastics, causing a near physical confrontation between Lin Wood and a frustrated Mike Kane.

BlueCrab

 

[Zman]

Zman,

It's not quite that simple.

Please remember that the DNA found in JonBenet's panties was mixed. The major component matched JonBenet's DNA; and if the minor component was contributed by a single individual then the other Ramseys could be excluded as the donor. However, if a third individual had contributed to the mix then the Ramseys could not be excluded. Therefore, the Ramseys are only tentatively excluded.

There are a lot of other variables to consider, including the authenticity of the information known to the public. Also, according to the documents flashed on the screen by Michael Tracey in the U.K.,and screen-captured by some of us who post here, apparently DS could not be eliminated as the contributor, even though the Ramseys, the Whites, and Mervin Pugh could be tentatively eliminated. There are other considerations, including Alex Hunter's cryptic comment, "You'd be surprised if you knew who we were investigating now."

We the public don't have the results of the DNA analyses to help determine if there was a fifth person in the house that night who had been invited in by a Ramsey. And that person's DNA is in the mix.

BlueCrab

Actually BC I don't believe LE has any DNA worth talking about. It's just another weak attempt to pressure possible suspects as LE has been doing all along. They have no real suspects. Only fishing lines they bait in hopes of a catch.

 

[narlacat]

Well, they did have real suspects. According to ST, LE interviewed 590 people and cleared more than 100 possible suspects.

 

[Zman]

Well, they did have real suspects. According to ST, LE interviewed 590 people and cleared more than 100 possible suspects.

Once again let me say I have no faith in who LE may have "cleared".

LE (ST,LA) were convinced it was the parents at the time.

We all know that now.

I don't think LE pursued other suspects to seriously.

 

[narlacat]

Once again let me say I have no faith in who LE may have "cleared".

LE (ST,LA) were convinced it was the parents at the time.

We all know that now.

I don't think LE pursued other suspects to seriously.

LE interviewed nearly 600 people, consulted 64 outside experts,investigated and cleared more than 100 possible suspects (even though you don't think they did), collected 1,058 pieces of evidence, tested over 500 items at federal, state and private laboratories, and gathered handwriting and nontestimonial evdience from 215 people. They also reviewed 3,400 letters and 700 telephone tips.

 

[BlueCrab]

Tipper,

I understand why you would question that.
Although Kane might not have the authority to clear BR,Kane was part of the GJ team ... and if they found him guilty,why would he make the statement above stating otherwise,months after the GJ ended?

The only conclusion IMO that I can come up with is .... maybe BR is not guilty.

capps,

OR, the GJ and its members and professional staff, including Mike Kane, had to follow the Colorado Children's Code and the court's gag order and lawfully LIE to protect the identities of the children.

Incidentally, GJ's do not find people innocent or guilty. Only the court can do that. GJ's can indict or not indict or, as in the case of children under 10 years of age in Colorado, by law they must do nothing except turn the matter over to the DA who disposes of the case in any way he deems appropriate.

BlueCrab

 

[hollyjokers]

I just think it is ridiculous to say BR did this & your "proof" is the Colorado Children's Code privacy law. Any other murder case that barely gets a mention on the local news, it would be possible to maintain the child's privacy. With this case there is absolutely no way they would be able to keep information like this from getting out. No way.

 

[asdasd]

I just think it is ridiculous to say BR did this & your "proof" is the Colorado Children's Code privacy law. Any other murder case that barely gets a mention on the local news, it would be possible to maintain the child's privacy. With this case there is absolutely no way they would be able to keep information like this from getting out. No way.

I completely agree and that was part of my earlier point. The code may be put in place to protect children but there is too much money tobe made by releasing info and the BPD have not proven to be the most trustworthy when it comes to keeping info secret.

 

[BlueCrab]

I completely agree and that was part of my earlier point. The code may be put in place to protect children but there is too much money tobe made by releasing info and the BPD have not proven to be the most trustworthy when it comes to keeping info secret.

asdasd,

Yep, I agree the truth, despite official confidentiality, can find its way out into the public. But try to trace the source and you'll find it nearly impossible. Therefore, without verification, one can either believe it or not.

Anyone releasing confidential information is going to make sure his back is covered. Violating Colorado law and violating a judge's protective order are criminal offenses, punishable by prison, a loss of professional licenses, and hence a loss of one's livelihood.

BlueCrab