Spade/FFJ info

[Shylock]

Originally posted by candy
From December 26th, 1996, to the date of this affidavit, no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from that of witness to suspect.

First, this information is old and OBSOLETE. There is a new investigation under a new DA who supposedly started from scratch. If that is truely the case, then Burke is a suspect again.

Secondly, Look closely at Hunter's words above. He never says Burke has been "CLEARED". He says "evidence has never been developed". That could change at any minute and this letter is three years old. All it takes is someone COMPETENT to look at this case, and Burke is one of the three prime suspects. He had the ability and opportunity to cause the death of his sister.
Someday (if it hasn't happened already) someone in Boulder will grow a brain and figure that out.

As for Steve Thomas, he's on record as saying Burke didn't have the "wherewithall" to commit the entire crime. Thomas thinks that because Burke couldn't have written the ransom note he should be excluded as a suspect. Thomas' rookie logic is way too obvious in that belief.

JMO-IMO

 

[Barbara]

NO EVIDENCE has ever been developed to label ANYONE a suspect, including John, Patsy, Burke, an intruder, etc.

So therefore, EVERYONE is a suspect, including Burke. Only Burke had it in writing that no evidence has been developed. That is the only difference. Some will have you believe that this means he is CLEARED. IT DOES NOT

 

[ajt400]

What would his motive be? Even if it were an accident, why did it happen?

 

[Ivy]

As the affidavit Candy posted indicates, in 1999 Hunter declared Burke wasn't a suspect. BUT in 2000 Hunter refused to sign an affidavit Wood wanted him to sign that stated that all questions related to Burke's possible involvment in JonBenet's death had been resolved to the satisfaction of investigators. Hunter also refused to sign an affidavit stating that Burke had never been viewed by investigators as a suspect. Hunter also would not sign anything that said that Burke had not been and was not at the present time a suspect.

Hunter finally agreed to sign a revised affidavit (see Candy's post above) that stated "no evidence has been devleoped to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from witness to suspect."

The revised affidavit Candy posted above served Wood and the Ramseys well in the Rs' lawsuit against the Globe because of specific claims made by the Globe, but the affidavit doesn't clear Burke. It merely states that LE had developed no evidence against Burke.

Source

 

[candy]

I know all about that "affidavit" controversy. I've seen the draft,etc. The NY Post challenged the affidavit, and was allowed to see the basis on which the DA made that call. After seeing all the evidence, the NY Post also settled with the Ramseys, the last of the Burke suits to settle.

 

[candy]

The affidavit does clear Burke:

6. From December 26th, 1996, to the date of this affidavit, NO EVIDENCE HAS EVER BEEN DEVELOPED in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from that of witness to suspect.

 

[Ivy]

So the NY Post saw that no evidence had been developed against Burke and folded. That's it, Candy.

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by ajt400
What would his motive be? Even if it were an accident, why did it happen?

I don't think a 10-year old needs a "motive". Maybe it was a sexual game gone wrong, maybe just anger when she stomped on his new Christmas toy.

" I am a psychologist in the process of evaluating a 12 year old white male who has been choking his young sister into unconsciousness multiple times a day for TWO YEARS, and molesting her."
http://www.silentvictims.org/

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Ivy
but the affidavit doesn't clear Burke. It merely states that LE had developed no evidence against Burke.

And as I stated before, the validity of the affidavit ended when Hunter left office.
This isn't the Vatican--where a Pope never contradicts a predecessor because it was God speaking through him...LOL

 

[candy]

LOL Shylock!

The affidavit came in October, 2000. Hunter was out of office in January, 2001. At the end of January, 2001, The Globe settled it's Burke lawsuit, July, 2001, AOL Time Warner settled it's Burke lawsuit, October, 2002, Court TV settled it's Burke lawsuit, and January, 2003, The New York Post settled it's Burke lawsuit, all after Hunter left office.

Please know as well that all of these litigants had the biggest, deep pocket attorneys money could buy, Williams and Connelly, the Fifth Avenue firm that represented the Post.

 

[Ivy]

They all settled because it became clear to them and their high-power attorneys that no evidence had been developed by LE against Burke to warrant his being named a suspect. Period.

 

[candy]

When the NY Post settled with the Ramseys, I found out about it about a month before it happened. It was in the process of settling for about 2 months before that. I didn't post on it until it was completely over.

Spade learned about what the NY Post did from my post. The NY Post lawyers never told Spade what they had done. They had quit taking his calls months before, just left him.

 

[Barbara]

Originally posted by candy
The affidavit does clear Burke:

6. From December 26th, 1996, to the date of this affidavit, NO EVIDENCE HAS EVER BEEN DEVELOPED in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from that of witness to suspect.

My turn:

LOL LOL

He enjoys the same status as his parents: witness

They are not suspects either Candy if we go by your logic; unless you can show us where they are now officially "suspects" rather than witnesses without "documents" of being called witnesses.

If you can't provide that, then it is fair to say that Burke is in the exact same category as his parents.

 

[Shylock]

Candy,
I think you're smart enough to know how tabloids work. They run a story which may, or may not, be true. BUT, they know that story will generate X-amount of dollars. So if they get sued and have to pay out out 1/2 of the X-amount in damages they could care less--they've still made themselves a nifty profit.

Tabloids get sued and settle on a regular basis. It's part of what they consider "the cost of doing business". That actually came out during a law suit filed against the NE by Carol Burnette.

 

[candy]

Easy as pie Barbara. Keenan's statement when she took over the case saying THE RAMSEYS WILL NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THIS INVESTIGATION.

 

[candy]

RE: The tabloid stories on Burke, that all settled. From Hunter's affidavit:

7. In May of 1999, I was made aware that tabloid newspapers had indicated that Burke Ramsey was a suspect in the murder of JonBenét Ramsey or was believed to be her killer. As a result of these articles, I was contacted by media representatives and I instructed my office to release a press statement which publicly and officially stated that Burke Ramsey was not a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister and that stated in part, "...almost a year ago (Boulder) Police Chief Mark Beckner stated during a news conference that Burke (Ramsey) was not a suspect and that we are not looking at him as a possible suspect." The information in the May 1999 press release was true and correct.

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by candy
Easy as pie Barbara. Keenan's statement when she took over the case saying THE RAMSEYS WILL NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THIS INVESTIGATION.

Candy, I think you just hit the nail right on the head. Notice that Keenan's statement does NOT exclude Burke, JAR, or any other member of the Ramsey family. It's a fresh investigation supposedly--Burke is a suspect just like everyone else.

(Don't get the idea I trust Keenan or have any faith in her. She has certainly proven herself to be a bimbo who can't find her with either hand.)

 

[Ivy]

Keenan told Lin Wood in a letter that during the new investigation she would communicate openly with him (Say WHAT?!?) and that she was acting because "a violent child murder is at large." Besides avoiding the lawsuit Wood threatened to file against the BPD, Keenan, by telling Wood this, was clearly absolving the Ramseys. Keenan also told Wood that she wouldn't go public via the press with her decision. In other words, if the investigation indicates the Ramseys were involved, Wood will be the first to know (and maybe the only one to ever know, except for Keenan's team and the Ramseys themselves). If the investigation points to Burke as the killer, that information will, without a doubt, be kept quiet, imo.

When Judge Carnes threw out the Wolf defamation suit against the Ramseys, Keenan also sided with the Ramseys by calling Carnes's ruling "thoughtful and well reasoned," despite the fact that Keenan KNEW that Carnes didn't have access to the police files that contained the evidence in the JonBenet case.

The investigation is a joke.

 

[ajt400]

Just out of curiosity, why would the BDA office keep the identity of a child murderer secret?

 

[Ivy]

ajt, even if the investigation were on the up-and-up, I don't believe a positive determination could ever be made that one of the Ramseys killed JonBenet. If the investigation should indicate they might have been involved, I'm sure Lin Wood would see to it that the information was squelched. This would be especially true for Burke, because he was two weeks shy of his tenth birthday when JonBenet died. Under CO law, no one under ten can be charged with a crime. Squelching information suggesting Burke might be the killer would probably be easy to do.