Burke Files 150 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Werner Sptiz???

[AB1]

In whose prosecution do they refer to themselves as witnesses?

"We were present at the Ramsey home the following day when JonBenet’s body was found. We became police and prosecution witnesses in the ensuing investigation." (2013 letter)
The Fleets do not specify.
So, equally, BR could call them.

I always found it an interesting choice of words, and assume it was a carefully considered statement.
If Fleet believes he/they were intrinsic to the police investigation, then it is relevant who he/they thought would/should be prosecuted and why.
It could support Spitz or clear BR.
And finally lay a little ghost to rest.

 

[Miz Adventure]

The Whites know a lot more than we think.

They must have been pretty surprised when they saw PR wearing exactly the same clothes as she had been wearing to their party the day before.

And FW must have been shocked when he saw JR 'discover' his daughter's body in a room that he himself had checked a few hours earlier.

Then there was THAT ransom note that they would have recognized as having been written by Patsy. They would have been familiar with her writing and idiosyncracies.

And....I wouldn't mind betting that Burke let slip something while he was in the White's house and Patsy was rambling. JR knew he had to get the family out of the house ASAP before the police started asking awkward questions.

And here's the thing....JR later discovered that FW had checked the cellar room so John would have known that Fleet knew, or guessed, the truth. If the Whites went to the police then the R's were done-for. The Whites HAD to be discredited. This is where the Krebs woman comes into things. She claimed the Whites were paedophiles. The Whites had to go to court to clear their name.

Some say (!) it was an underhanded move by the R's and their lawyers in finding this odd character who, by rights, as it turned out, should not have been given a moment of anybody's time.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I've always found that idea laughably impossible. If you couldn't charge someone involved in a crime because a child under 10 was also involved and can't be named, then people would have their kids along with them stealing stuff left and right and Oops, can't do anything about it because little Timmy was only 9 when he helped me lift this tv. I'm sure the intent of the law is that Burke was 9 years old and could not form intent to commit a crime, therefore he cannot be charged with a crime. Not that every one in the entire legal system is forbidden from saying his name in connection with a crime.

Yep, you can't charge a dead murderer either but his living accomplices can be charged. Maybe someone has a link but I've never seen anything that confirms a minor under 10 can't be mentioned in proceedings, only that he can't be charged.

 

[Miz Adventure]

Yep, you can't charge a dead murderer either but his living accomplices can be charged. Maybe someone has a link but I've never seen anything that confirms a minor under 10 can't be mentioned in proceedings, only that he can't be charged.

I think you can mention a child under the age of 10 but you cannot accuse them. This is why the DA's hands were tied and he was unable to sign the warrants. If the R's went to court to defend themselves from the charge (of assisting a third party commit First Degree murder) the jury would want to know who, exactly, they were assisting.

For 'assisting' read 'covering up for'.

 

[vlpate]

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/bur...st-who-claimed-he-killed-his-sister-jonbenet/

Why not the others in the show? It's 1:30 in the AM and I am using my phone to post. Sorry it's a short post but I will add more later. Until then I look forward to reading your thoughts Tricia

So the burden of proof is on Burke, correct? Hopefully Spitz won't settle.

 

[UKGuy]

Spitz's lawyers should call Fleet White.

In his letter requesting full disclosure of the GJ , the Whites refer to themselves as prosecution witnesses.

AB1,
Fleet White does not have any smoking gun evidence, else we would have heard about it by now, i.e. via GJ leaks.

What I reckon has transpired, and its all hearsay, third party etc, is that FW from the beginning suspected JR as JonBenet's killer.

FW not observing JonBenet first hand early that morning only to see JR immediately pick out JonBenet in a dimmed wine-cellar, must have set FW's mental machinery into overdrive? All interested parties should note JR has very bad eyesight, hence the reason for a personal airplane pilot.

So with all the local gossip, stories about JonBenet through the local grapevine, etc. FW likely thinks incest with JR preemptively silencing JonBenet. Remember he confronted JR about telling the truth, etc.


At some point, say after the GJ proceedings, the White's come to realize that the case is really BDI, and legally there is not much they can do? Hence the silence over the years from the White's.

If the White's are really prosecution witnesses then patently under Colorado State minor statutes they can never bear witness in court against Burke Ramsey.

Surely that leaves only PR or JR in the White's frame?

.

 

[Tortoise]

AB1,
All interested parties should note JR has very bad eyesight, hence the reason for a personal airplane pilot.

It was funny when he was asked how he read the ransom note without his glasses.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

The Whites know a lot more than we think.

They must have been pretty surprised when they saw PR wearing exactly the same clothes as she had been wearing to their party the day before.

And FW must have been shocked when he saw JR 'discover' his daughter's body in a room that he himself had checked a few hours earlier.

Then there was THAT ransom note that they would have recognized as having been written by Patsy. They would have been familiar with her writing and idiosyncracies.

And....I wouldn't mind betting that Burke let slip something while he was in the White's house and Patsy was rambling. JR knew he had to get the family out of the house ASAP before the police started asking awkward questions.

And here's the thing....JR later discovered that FW had checked the cellar room so John would have known that Fleet knew, or guessed, the truth. If the Whites went to the police then the R's were done-for. The Whites HAD to be discredited. This is where the Krebs woman comes into things. She claimed the Whites were paedophiles. The Whites had to go to court to clear their name.

Some say (!) it was an underhanded move by the R's and their lawyers in finding this odd character who, by rights, as it turned out, should not have been given a moment of anybody's time.

I agree about the Whites. I'm dying to know what's in those notes FW took that morning and showed to police.

About Krebs, I do not think the Rs were involved with that. Though FW was the one dragged through the mud, Nancy Krebs also accused John Ramsey - or "Uncle Johnny" - of molesting her and being involved and claimed to have met Patsy in California. The Ramseys were just lucky THAT didn't get as much publicity as FWs supposed involvement did. I don't believe the Ramseys ever even mentioned that woman or her story publicly and they would have been stupid to do so.

There was a vendetta here imo and it was Alex Hunter getting back at the Whites for all those public letters they wrote criticizing him and requesting a special prosecutor. It was AH who gave the story legs in the first place when he told a reporter that he found her to be a very credible witness. I find that very hard to believe, especially considering how quickly the case was dropped. She was just one of many crazies to pop out of the woodwork but luckily for AH this particular crazy legitimately had some tenuous connection to the White family. So AH got to
A) retaliate against the Whites for publicly criticizing him by helping spread this ridiculous story
and
B) make it sound like his office was actually working on the case because suddenly they had a so-called credible witness.
Just another day in the life of Alex Slimeball Hunter.

 

[Miz Adventure]

The Whites campaigned for the Grand Jury's evidence to be made public. I think they knew that if that happened then the truth would (at last) be revealed.

It seems that they desperately wanted their friends to own up to what really happened instead of hiding behind their lawyers and telling the residents of Boulder to be very afraid and...."Keep your babies close to you" because there was a child killer on the loose.

This is one of the reasons that drove JR into a fury of hatred towards the Whites.

I don't think the Whites will now ever tell what they know. They most likely just want to be left in peace and never hear the name Ramsey ever again. And who can blame them?

 

[UKGuy]

It was funny when he was asked how he read the ransom note without his glasses.

Tortoise,
Yup, one of those details lost on the general public.

 

[UKGuy]

UK Christmas Viewing.

Who Killed JonBenet Lifetime Channel on Sunday December 16th at 10 PM.
The Case of JonBenet S01E1 More4 Channel on Thursday December 22nd at 9 PM.
The Case of JonBenet S01E2 More4 Channel on Friday December 23rd at 9 PM.

 

[observation]

AB1,
Fleet White does not have any smoking gun evidence, else we would have heard about it by now, i.e. via GJ leaks.

What I reckon has transpired, and its all hearsay, third party etc, is that FW from the beginning suspected JR as JonBenet's killer.

FW not observing JonBenet first hand early that morning only to see JR immediately pick out JonBenet in a dimmed wine-cellar, must have set FW's mental machinery into overdrive?All interested parties should note JR has very bad eyesight, hence the reason for a personal airplane pilot.

So with all the local gossip, stories about JonBenet through the local grapevine, etc. FW likely thinks incest with JR preemptively silencing JonBenet. Remember he confronted JR about telling the truth, etc.


At some point, say after the GJ proceedings, the White's come to realize that the case is really BDI, and legally there is not much they can do? Hence the silence over the years from the White's.

If the White's are really prosecution witnesses then patently under Colorado State minor statutes they can never bear witness in court against Burke Ramsey.

Surely that leaves only PR or JR in the White's frame?

.

Responding to the comment about JR's vision. One of my best friend's dad had a small airplane when we were growing up. As her dad got older and retired he became depressed. If a pilot is under the care of a psychiatrist or taking prescription medication- he cannot fly an airplane- aviation rule. I suspect JR was prescribed medication beyond his admitted melatonin and could no longer fly solo.
O/T I never thought this was particularly fair. I would rather my pilot be medicated/treated than depressed and untreated.
It's so easy to see PR may have struggled with some MH issues- total hysterectomy (even the healthiest women can be influenced by hormonal flux and depletions) but most overlook old JR. He was an anxious man but much less obvious. IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otg]

Yep, you can't charge a dead murderer either but his living accomplices can be charged. Maybe someone has a link but I've never seen anything that confirms a minor under 10 can't be mentioned in proceedings, only that he can't be charged.

This keeps coming up, so I hope this will help...

The CO Statutes say an "infant" (defined in CO as a child under the age of 10) cannot be charged with a felony because they are incapable of forming "criminal intent." They state specifically that even though they can't be charged or convicted, it doesn't mean they cannot commit an act that is otherwise criminal. This does not mean that an adult who is involved in the act cannot be charged. This tenet has been tested in People v. Miller and then codified in the Statutes. (Explanation of that case can be found here.)

Many cases have charges that name minors (not just "infants," but anyone under the age of 18) involved in the case -- either as participants or as victims. When any document with their name is made public, or when the case is discussed publicly, the actual name of that minor is redacted or withheld. This doesn't preclude charges from being brought or prevent a trial from being held, despite all the speculation of it in this case. Of course, in many cases, it is easy enough for the public (or at least those familiar with the details of a case) to understand who that minor would be. So for that reason, a DA might be reluctant to pursue charges against the adult(s) without a good chance at conviction.

Had Alex Hunter been willing to pursue the indictment (assuming BDI for the moment), he certainly could have done so. But there are so many reasons that have been speculated as to why he did not, there is no need to list them now. The point is, there is nothing in the laws of CO that meant the Ramseys (John and Patsy) could not nave been charged because of a minor's (possible) involvement.

I heard this for so many years, I too assumed it was correct. It wasn't until I read the statutes that I realized it is not. If anyone says it is, I challenge them to find it in the Colorado Revised Statutes:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/

 

[UKGuy]

Responding to the comment about JR's vision. One of my best friend's dad had a small airplane when we were growing up. As her dad got older and retired he became depressed. If a pilot is under the care of a psychiatrist or taking prescription medication- he cannot fly an airplane- aviation rule. I suspect JR was prescribed medication beyond his admitted melatonin and could no longer fly solo.
O/T I never thought this was particularly fair. I would rather my pilot be medicated/treated than depressed and untreated.
It's so easy to see PR may have struggled with some MH issues- total hysterectomy (even the healthiest women can be influenced by hormonal flux and depletions) but most overlook old JR. He was an anxious man but much less obvious. IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

observation,
Yes, its possible JR was prescribed some medication preventing him from flying. I think I read about JR's sight difficulties in either PMPT or ITRMI by Steve Thomas, where his declining eyesight was discussed.

 

[observation]

observation,
Yes, its possible JR was prescribed some medication preventing him from flying. I think I read about JR's sight difficulties in either PMPT or ITRMI by Steve Thomas, where his declining eyesight was discussed.

I have no doubt his vision was not 20/20 and his perceptions of the truth seem to be off kilter as well. Kolar had a very nice detailed account of the many inconsistencies in his statements. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[observation]

I have no doubt his vision was not 20/20 and his perceptions of the truth seem to be off kilter as well. Kolar had a very nice detailed account of the many inconsistencies in his statements. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn't complete my full thought- The R's that I am aware of were never questioned as suspects, only witnesses,meaning not under oath. I believe they were under oath for some of the civil depo.s. Yep, so much for perjury charges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[observation]

This keeps coming up, so I hope this will help...

The CO Statutes say an "infant" (defined in CO as a child under the age of 10) cannot be charged with a felony because they are incapable of forming "criminal intent." They state specifically that even though they can't be charged or convicted, it doesn't mean they cannot commit an act that is otherwise criminal. This does not mean that an adult who is involved in the act cannot be charged. This tenet has been tested in People v. Miller and then codified in the Statutes. (Explanation of that case can be found here.)

Many cases have charges that name minors (not just "infants," but anyone under the age of 18) involved in the case -- either as participants or as victims. When any document with their name is made public, or when the case is discussed publicly, the actual name of that minor is redacted or withheld. This doesn't preclude charges from being brought or prevent a trial from being held, despite all the speculation of it in this case. Of course, in many cases, it is easy enough for the public (or at least those familiar with the details of a case) to understand who that minor would be. So for that reason, a DA might be reluctant to pursue charges against the adult(s) without a good chance at conviction.

Had Alex Hunter been willing to pursue the indictment (assuming BDI for the moment), he certainly could have done so. But there are so many reasons that have been speculated as to why he did not, there is no need to list them now. The point is, there is nothing in the laws of CO that meant the Ramseys (John and Patsy) could not nave been charged because of a minor's (possible) involvement.

I heard this for so many years, I too assumed it was correct. It wasn't until I read the statutes that I realized it is not. If anyone says it is, I challenge them to find it in the Colorado Revised Statutes:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/

Very doubtful anyone would challenge you here, OTG. [emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

So the burden of proof is on Burke, correct? Hopefully Spitz won't settle.

That's right. Here in the USA, the plaintiff has to prove their case, not the other way around.

 

[singularity]

About Krebs, I do not think the Rs were involved with that.

Me either. It was just some nutjob and as we all know, there is a poop load of those on the internet.

 

[andreww]

That's right. Here in the USA, the plaintiff has to prove their case, not the other way around.

He'll settle, they all do.