Was Burke involved?

[MyBelle]

Oh girl, you've got a whole lot more reading to do!
Research who testified at the grand jury and who didn't and who decided and who was furious!
Then you must read for yourself all that went on concerning those medical records.
You're missing a huge chunk of this case. Huge. The politics, the coddling of the Ramsey's it is all mind boggling stuff!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did no investigators testify? I have no clue where to even find anything about the medical records or who testified. I just know that the records can be subpoenaed.

 

[redheadedgal]

the link to the video of Burke at his job at Mobi.

http://mobiwm.com/2012/07/19/meet-mobis-developers/

Burke is not a suspect. Are we allowed to start sleuthing him now? Post videos of him working??

That seems to be against TOS.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8165008&postcount=89"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - James Kolar's New Book Will Blow the Lid off the JonBenet Ramsey Investigation[/ame]


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1934150&postcount=1"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Tricia Will Be Moderating Along With JBRMod2[/ame]

 

[Linda7NJ]

Did no investigators testify? I have no clue where to even find anything about the medical records or who testified. I just know that the records can be subpoenaed.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-grand-jury.htm




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

I started a Patsy only Patsy thread here. No one is on it.

It's my other favorite theory!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

well PoP theory certainly would explain why there was no arrest. She's dead. Statute of limitations on any cover-up by John has expired.

 

[Mama2JML]

According to Mark Beckner & Steve Thomas (himself), Thomas was never the lead detective on the JBR case.

Source: MB's & ST's Depos in Wolf v. Ramseys

 

[SapphireSteel]

I have no clue. While message forums seem fixated on BR, it doesn't seem that any of the investigators spent much time on BR at all as a suspect.

Thanks.

All those detectives, prosecutors, psychiatrists, the FBI - no one seems to have even considered BDI.

Total widespread incompetence or a uniform professional view of BDI as impossible?



:moo:

 

[SapphireSteel]

We aren't ignoring evidence. We're considering evidence that includes BR.

What evidence would rhat be?

 

[Linda7NJ]

According to Mark Beckner & Steve Thomas (himself), Thomas was never the lead detective on the JBR case.

Source: MB's & ST's Depos in Wolf v. Ramseys

There are far too many inaccuracies in that to even count.
#1 the grand jury didn't find cause to indict.
3. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE INTRUDER THEORY
Defendants assert that the evidence establishes that Mrs. Ramsey did not murder her daughter JonBenet. (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J. [67] at 18.) Specifically, defendants note that:
[a]fter a half-decade investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, and year-long grand jury investigation, no plausible evidence proves Patsy Ramsey had anything to do with the murder of her child. Every prosecutor to examine this case agreed that no charge or crime should have been brought against [defendants].

http://www.leagle.com/decision/20031576253FSupp2d1323_11466

Huge lie.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SapphireSteel]

We aren't ignoring evidence. We're considering evidence that includes BR.

According to Mark Beckner & Steve Thomas (himself), Thomas was never the lead detective on the JBR case.

Source: MB's & ST's Depos in Wolf v. Ramseys

Perhaps thats why hes credible.

No title, just a working joe who knows a snake when he sees one.

 

[Linda7NJ]

What evidence would rhat be?

Have you read Kolars book?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SapphireSteel]

I read PR's interviews and remember being struck by her saying "why would we do that to another child?".

Which implies, another victim.

:sick:

 

[SapphireSteel]

Have you read Kolars book?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

I dont think I want to either.

I think he is working a new angle just to make money.

 

[lawstudent]

I guess it depends on how you define evidence, but I don't think there's evidence of almost anything in this case. There is information from which multiple conclusions could be reasonably drawn, but not much actually evidenced.

We have evidence that someone killed her, and that the investigation was botched. Almost everything else seems to be speculation to some degree.

ETA: I define evidence as showing something almost to the exclusion of other possibilities, rather than being simply consistent with something. A lot of the evidence is consistent with a number of possibilities, though some more likely than others. You can draw stronger conclusions based on the totality, but when each of those small conclusions is fairly speculative, the totality isn't as overwhelming as people think. I don't mean that circumstantial evidence is not evidence, or that you need proof - but there are some things people cite as evidence that is instead merely consistent with their conclusion.

 

[redheadedgal]

According to Mark Beckner & Steve Thomas (himself), Thomas was never the lead detective on the JBR case.

Source: MB's & ST's Depos in Wolf v. Ramseys

hmmm. the link linda supplied re: the case ^^^, says just the opposite:

One lead detective assigned to the case, Steven Thomas, had no prior experience with a murder investigation and had previously served as an undercover narcotics officer. (SMF ¶ 68; PSMF ¶ 68.)

 

[Mama2JML]

There are far too many inaccuracies in that to even count.
#1 the grand jury didn't find cause to indict.
3. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE INTRUDER THEORY
Defendants assert that the evidence establishes that Mrs. Ramsey did not murder her daughter JonBenet. (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J. [67] at 18.) Specifically, defendants note that:
[a]fter a half-decade investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, and year-long grand jury investigation, no plausible evidence proves Patsy Ramsey had anything to do with the murder of her child. Every prosecutor to examine this case agreed that no charge or crime should have been brought against [defendants].

http://www.leagle.com/decision/20031576253FSupp2d1323_11466

Huge lie.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would ST & MB lie, under oath, about ST's role in the investigation?

...& where is the proclamation, "The grand jury didn't find cause to indict." in Judge Carnes' ruling?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Why would ST & MB lie, under oath, about ST's role in the investigation?

...& where is the proclamation, "The grand jury didn't find cause to indict." in Judge Carnes' ruling?

You're going to have to research this yourself.

There are so so many inaccuracies, lies and nonsense contained...I wouldn't even know where to begin.

IMO to use that as a source...would be a mistake. I'd urge you to look at the other interviews, depos, books etc...

 

[Tawny]

I'm sorry but I (and others) have already listed plenty of evidence that includes BR, and I'm not going to do it yet again. Read back in the thread if you really want to know, however, I suspect the motive behind asking again is to stop the conversation... again.

 

[Tawny]

I read PR's interviews and remember being struck by her saying "why would we do that to another child?".

Which implies, another victim.

:sick:

She said " I can't imagine that you can do that to another child.", which can also be taken as why would a child do this to another child.

 

[Tawny]

I am really beginning to feel we need a BDI ONLY thread because it's becoming impossible to discuss this without stopping constantly to regurgitate what we've already repeated a dozen times. The attempts to halt the conversation altogether are infuriating. :banghead:

 

[Linda7NJ]

I'm sorry but I (and others) have already listed plenty of evidence that includes BR, and I'm not going to do it yet again. Read back in the thread if you really want to know, however, I suspect the motive behind asking again is to stop the conversation... again.

Agree.


I'm not going to write an essay, create an outline and provide a bibliography of Kolars book.

I strongly suggest anyone wanting to understand the "Burke as a possibility" theory to read the book.

All IMO.