Burke Ramsey Files 750 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against CBS

[TeaTime]

This is exactly what a few local lawyers said as well when I asked them. I recommend people call a local lawyer if they're still confused or unclear.

Which is why I wrote it. :shush:

 

[TeaTime]

If counts IV (a) and VII were the only counts, then they would have been labeled as counts I and II.

removed by me.

 

[kanzz]

In Colorado --
A True Bill requires 9 votes.
A No True Bill also requires 9 votes.

From cynic: Colorado is one of a few states whose GJs vote not only for a True Bill, but they also have to have a majority vote for a No True Bill. So either way (as I understand it), the GJ’s vote is an “official action”.

Since the GJ Foreman did not sign the other charges, one can assume there was not the requisite 9 votes for either No True Bills or additional True Bills.

Could you speculate about the other counts (I - IV and V - VI)? And how those counts originate or are created?

I have read that the GJ is presented with a list of possible counts from which they could choose to charge (vote), but unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the link to that article.

The piece I read said that the GJ is provided with a list of counts which list offenses based loosely on order of severity. e.g. I. First Degree Murder, II. Second Degree Murder, etc. And that the GJ does not write the document, the prosecutor does. Because, I would assume, it would all have to be based upon what laws would/could apply.

i.e. - Here's your list, GJ. Vote on the counts you decide to charge (?)

 

[SS 396 SS]

To be fair, what a grand jury finds has nothing to do with what really happened. They could be 100% right, they could be 100% wrong, they could get it 50/50. The DA not signing off on them doesn't mean that isn't what happened, it just means he didn't feel confident enough in the evidence to bring it to trial.

If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly.

I agree with this. Its simply the difference between reasonable cause and reasonable doubt. Its much easier to get an indictment than it is a conviction.

 

[Sherlockknows]

Sherlock - the wording of the RN is just a hot mess of confusion. I tend to think that the writer used 'tomorrow' because it was still night when it was being written.

Your thinking that PR is the culprit is shared by ALL of the detectives on the case from the beginning. Kolar and the release of the GJ indictment changed that thought for many of us. For me, the GJ indictment, on its own, points at BR.

Did the GJ not get to hear from PR? And did they not quiz the Cleaner for eight hours?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Sherlockknows]

And wasn't the problem, because of the DNA in the panties, you could go to Hong Kong where they were made and test everyone, but DNA there could be from anyone. The reality is the DNA created reasonable doubt no?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[HarmonyE.]

In Colorado --
A True Bill requires 9 votes.
A No True Bill also requires 9 votes.

From cynic: Colorado is one of a few states whose GJs vote not only for a True Bill, but they also have to have a majority vote for a No True Bill. So either way (as I understand it), the GJ’s vote is an “official action”.

Since the GJ Foreman did not sign the other charges, one can assume there was not the requisite 9 votes for either No True Bills or additional True Bills.

Thank you. It's an odd way for a GJ to operate but it helps frame the decisions, while not fully explaining them.

The only things 9 jurors could agree on was that John and Patsy, together or separately kept their child in danger and together or separately covered for the murderer.

 

[TeaTime]

Sherlock - the problem with the tDNA is multi-faceted.

First - unidentifiable tDNA from 5 men and one woman were found on JBR's body and the clothes in which she was found. Literally just cells from others, under her nails, on her clothes.

Second - the tDNA on the waistbands had only 4 markers when 13 are required for identification.

Third - the tDNA on the waistbands were actually a mix of at least 2 different males.

Fourth - Mary Lacy knew that the tDNA samples were just artifacts which could neither identify nor exclude anyone, except as to gender, but chose to exonerate the entire R family.

Fifth - the tDNA in the crotch of the panties was mixed in with a tiny blood smear from JBR.

Sixth - CBS showed the world what we all already knew and that is that brand new clothes have DNA on them which gets deposited during manufacturing and packaging.

I think the DNA exoneration was a joke that the R's laughed about in secret. As in "how stupid are these people? But, we will take it."

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

Did the GJ not get to hear from PR? And did they not quiz the Cleaner for eight hours?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Neither PR nor JR were called before the grand jury, just BR

 

[Ambitioned]

The list

Grand Jury witnesses

Some of the people known to have testified before the Ramsey grand jury:

Mike Archuleta -- Private pilot who was scheduled to fly the Ramseys to their Michigan vacation home the day after Christmas 1996.

Linda Arndt -- Now-retired Boulder Police detective, the first investigator on the scene.

Dr. Francesco Beuf -- JonBenet's pediatrician.

Debbie Chavez -- Colorado Bureau of Investigation forensics expert.

John Douglas -- Former FBI criminal profiler hired by the Ramseys.

Michael Everett -- Among the first Boulder Police detectives assigned to the case.

John and Barbara Fernie -- Friends of the Ramseys who were summoned to the home after JonBenet was discovered missing.

Richard French -- One of the first Boulder patrol officers on the scene. He searched the house shortly after arriving, without locating JonBenet's body.

Ron Gosage -- Boulder Police detective working the case from its first days.

Pam Griffin -- Ramsey family friend and seamstress who assisted with JonBenet's beauty pageant costumes.

Jane Harmer -- Boulder Police detective involved in the case from the beginning.

George Herrera -- CBI fingerprints expert.

Linda Hoffmann-Pugh -- Ramseys' housekeeper at the time of JonBenet's death.

The Rev. Rol Hoverstock -- Minister from the Ramseys' church, summoned to the home in the first hours of JonBenet's disappearance.

Larry Mason -- Boulder Police sergeant removed from the case in its second week when he was wrongly accused of leaking information to the press.

Dr. John Meyer -- Boulder County coroner; he performed the autopsy on JonBenet.

Fred Patterson -- Boulder Police detective, among the first on the scene.

Carol Piirto -- Burke Ramsey's third-grade teacher.

Merv Pugh -- The husband of Linda Hoffmann-Pugh; he had done some work at the home a month before the murder.

Burke Ramsey -- JonBenet's brother, now 12, the only person other than her parents known to be in the house at the time she disappeared.

Lou Smit -- Retired Colorado Springs homicide detective who worked on the case for the district attorney's office.

Tom Trujillo -- A Boulder Police detective on the case since its earliest days.

Chet Ubowski -- Colorado Bureau of Investigation handwriting analyst who concluded that Patsy Ramsey may have written the ransom note linked to JonBenet's murder.

Barry Weiss -- Among the first Boulder patrol officers at the Ramsey home.

Fleet and Priscilla White -- Ramsey friends called to the house the morning of JonBenet's disappearance. Fleet was in the basement with John Ramsey when the child's body was found.

Tom Wickman -- The Boulder police detective sergeant who has supervised the investigation since the early days.

September 22, 1999

 

[Sherlockknows]

Sherlock - the problem with the tDNA is multi-faceted.

First - unidentifiable tDNA from 5 men and one woman were found on JBR's body and the clothes in which she was found. Literally just cells from others, under her nails, on her clothes.

Second - the tDNA on the waistbands had only 4 markers when 13 are required for identification.

Third - the tDNA on the waistbands were actually a mix of at least 2 different males.

Fourth - Mary Lacy knew that the tDNA samples were just artifacts which could neither identify nor exclude anyone, except as to gender, but chose to exonerate the entire R family.

Fifth - the tDNA in the crotch of the panties was mixed in with a tiny blood smear from JBR.

Sixth - CBS showed the world what we all already knew and that is that brand new clothes have DNA on them which gets deposited during manufacturing and packaging.

I think the DNA exoneration was a joke that the R's laughed about in secret. As in "how stupid are these people? But, we will take it."

True, but if it was your son, who just happened to be innocent for argument's sake, and there was lots of different DNA then you'd be furious if it didn't create a reasonable doubt?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ZoriahNZ]

Carol Piirto -- Burke Ramsey's third-grade teacher.

This one makes me raise my eyebrows the most. Why call on Burke's teacher and not JonBenet's? What kind of testimony could she give?

If Burke wasn't a factor in the crime in some way...this doesn't make any sense, imo.

 

[flourish]

True, but if it was your son, who just happened to be innocent for argument's sake, and there was lots of different DNA then you'd be furious if it didn't create a reasonable doubt?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If it were my son, and I believed him innocent, I would cooperate fully, with my lawyer present, and expect my son to, as well.

 

[HarmonyE.]

This one makes me raise my eyebrows the most. Why call on Burke's teacher and not JonBenet's? What kind of testimony could she give?

If Burke wasn't a factor in the crime in some way...this doesn't make any sense, imo.

And he was in the fourth grade at the time, not the third. So it stands to reason she was testifying about something that happened involving Burke six to fifteen months before his sister was murdered. If a teacher was being called to speak about him being a good or well behaved student, his current teacher would make more sense. Might not have been about Burke directly though. Maybe she witnessed Patsy "going psycho" for some reason. With no context we can only speculate.

 

[Sherlockknows]

If it were my son, and I believed him innocent, I would cooperate fully, with my lawyer present, and expect my son to, as well.

I wasn't talking about it being this case, I was saying the use of it in any case. I.e. The law. If there is reasonable doubt for any reason you are innocent till proven guilty.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Sherlockknows]

I listened to the call with the digital remastering. She is saying Holy Christ. Then the remastering, Burkey, What did you do? Ridiculous for me. Talk about trying to fit a murderer in to a crime. Same thing went on for years with his Father.

She almost asked for an Ambulance at first though. Then composed herself at the last second and said Police. Totally innocent of course. Burkey did it alright. All over a slice of Pineapple.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

I recently caught a program on a retired detective who investigated the case. Went in through the window left open in the basement, questioned the snow around the house theory as there was none on the paths and also questioned the partial DNA.

The partial DNA said Hispanic Male. Are there any of the neighbours which match this profile?

That claim was made by a man who was exposed as a fraud in open court.

 

[icedtea4me]

And he was in the fourth grade at the time, not the third. So it stands to reason she was testifying about something that happened involving Burke six to fifteen months before his sister was murdered. If a teacher was being called to speak about him being a good or well behaved student, his current teacher would make more sense. Might not have been about Burke directly though. Maybe she witnessed Patsy "going psycho" for some reason. With no context we can only speculate.

Burke's third grade teacher knew him longer than his fourth grade teacher.

 

[flourish]

I wasn't talking about it being this case, I was saying the use of it in any case. I.e. The law. If there is reasonable doubt for any reason you are innocent till proven guilty.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ah. Then I'm guessing we may have differing opinions on the definition of "reasonable doubt." "Almost possible" is more the realm I'd put the tDNA from this case, and that's not reasonable doubt in my book.

 

[flourish]

I listened to the call with the digital remastering. She is saying Holy Christ. Then the remastering, Burkey, What did you do? Ridiculous for me. Talk about trying to fit a murderer in to a crime. Same thing went on for years with his Father.

She almost asked for an Ambulance at first though. Then composed herself at the last second and said Police. Totally innocent of course. Burkey did it alright. All over a slice of Pineapple.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I've never heard it as "Burkey." Did anyone else ever call him that besides you?