Was Burke involved?

[Mama2JML]

Mark Beckner in Wolf v. Ramseys:

"23 Q Did anyone take on any sole responsibility
24 for the Ramsey case under your supervision when you
25 took on in March of '98 the responsibility for the

22

1 entire detective unit?
2 A Yes, Sergeant Tom Wickman was actually in
3 charge of the investigation. Detective Tom Trujillo
4 was the lead investigator assigned to that case. So
5 when we say that I was in charge of the
6 investigation, what really that means is that I
7 managed the personnel that were investigating that
8 case.
9 Q Would that be true in October of '97?
10 A Yes.
11 Q In October of '97, you took on
12 responsibility for managing the personnel who were
13 handling the case, Tom Wickman being in charge of the
14 detectives handling the Ramsey case and Tom Trujillo
15 being the lead detective?
16 A And coordinating the investigation.
17 Q And your job to coordinate the
18 investigation?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Right. And so when you took on the more
21 expanded role in March of 1998, that hierarchy as
22 such did not change, Wickman still was in charge
23 responding to you?
24 A (Deponent nods head.)
25 Q You were managing the detectives?

23

1 A Correct.
2 Q And coordinating the investigation?
3 A Correct.
4 Q Trujillo remained the lead detective?
5 A Correct.
6 Q Did Steve Thomas ever have the role of
7 lead detective in the Ramsey investigation?
8 A Not under my command, no.
9 Q Do you know whether prior to your taking
10 on the case in October of '97 Mr. Thomas ever had
11 been given the role of lead detective?
12 A I have been told no."​

Steve Thomas in Wolf v. Ramseys:

"Q. As I understand it initially Tom Trujillo and Linda Ardnt were the two designated co-lead detectives on the case, JonBenet Ramsey case, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And then after Arndt was removed, did Tom Wickman take that place, did he become the lead detective?

A. Tom Wickman or Tom Trujillo?

Q. You tell me whether it was Wickman or Trujillo.

A. No, because there was no real designation at that point.

Q. Were you ever designated by the department as the lead detective or co-lead detective on the case?

A. There were four or five detectives who were designated as primary detectives who worked this case full time with no other assignments.

Q. My question was were you ever designated by the Boulder Police Department as the lead detective or a co-lead detective on the JonBenet Ramsey case?

A. No, after Ardnt left -- actually, prior to Arndt leaving, that designation was not being used in the manner you describe it.​

 

[SapphireSteel]

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.

Im sorry but I havent seen any evidence.

Im not trying to stop the discussion at all! Asking questions usually encourages it!

Is there any physical evidence of BDI? Anyone?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Mark Beckner in Wolf v. Ramseys:

"23 Q Did anyone take on any sole responsibility
24 for the Ramsey case under your supervision when you
25 took on in March of '98 the responsibility for the

22

1 entire detective unit?
2 A Yes, Sergeant Tom Wickman was actually in
3 charge of the investigation. Detective Tom Trujillo
4 was the lead investigator assigned to that case. So
5 when we say that I was in charge of the
6 investigation, what really that means is that I
7 managed the personnel that were investigating that
8 case.
9 Q Would that be true in October of '97?
10 A Yes.
11 Q In October of '97, you took on
12 responsibility for managing the personnel who were
13 handling the case, Tom Wickman being in charge of the
14 detectives handling the Ramsey case and Tom Trujillo
15 being the lead detective?
16 A And coordinating the investigation.
17 Q And your job to coordinate the
18 investigation?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Right. And so when you took on the more
21 expanded role in March of 1998, that hierarchy as
22 such did not change, Wickman still was in charge
23 responding to you?
24 A (Deponent nods head.)
25 Q You were managing the detectives?

23

1 A Correct.
2 Q And coordinating the investigation?
3 A Correct.
4 Q Trujillo remained the lead detective?
5 A Correct.
6 Q Did Steve Thomas ever have the role of
7 lead detective in the Ramsey investigation?
8 A Not under my command, no.
9 Q Do you know whether prior to your taking
10 on the case in October of '97 Mr. Thomas ever had
11 been given the role of lead detective?
12 A I have been told no."​

Steve Thomas in Wolf v. Ramseys:

"Q. As I understand it initially Tom Trujillo and Linda Ardnt were the two designated co-lead detectives on the case, JonBenet Ramsey case, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And then after Arndt was removed, did Tom Wickman take that place, did he become the lead detective?

A. Tom Wickman or Tom Trujillo?

Q. You tell me whether it was Wickman or Trujillo.

A. No, because there was no real designation at that point.

Q. Were you ever designated by the department as the lead detective or co-lead detective on the case?

A. There were four or five detectives who were designated as primary detectives who worked this case full time with no other assignments.

Q. My question was were you ever designated by the Boulder Police Department as the lead detective or a co-lead detective on the JonBenet Ramsey case?

A. No, after Ardnt left -- actually, prior to Arndt leaving, that designation was not being used in the manner you describe it.​

Are you aware of the animosity and circumstances surrounding Steve Thomas's departure from the BPD? Are you aware of all the B.S. That was going on at the time?

A simple google using "Steve Thomas JonBenet" would be a terrific place for you to start.

I am not willing to go down this rabbit hole yet again. I suggest you read from mutable sources and draw your own well educated opinions. This document, just isn't it. IMO

 

[DeDee]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The name I found of great interest in the list provided in the link you posted was BRs third grade school teacher.

The owners of Rue Morgue Mystery Bookshop in Boulder are on this list of witnesses.

http://www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm

Wonder what they would have to say to the Ramsey GJ?

 

[MyBelle]

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.

The Grand Jury was provided evidence the public has not been provided. The witness testimony is evidence as are any records that may have been subpoenaed.

While the police investigation may have been flawed, I do not believe the individual investigators were all incompetent.

 

[MyBelle]

Mark Beckner in Wolf v. Ramseys:

"23 Q Did anyone take on any sole responsibility
24 for the Ramsey case under your supervision when you
25 took on in March of '98 the responsibility for the

22

1 entire detective unit?
2 A Yes, Sergeant Tom Wickman was actually in
3 charge of the investigation. Detective Tom Trujillo
4 was the lead investigator assigned to that case. So
5 when we say that I was in charge of the
6 investigation, what really that means is that I
7 managed the personnel that were investigating that
8 case.
9 Q Would that be true in October of '97?
10 A Yes.
11 Q In October of '97, you took on
12 responsibility for managing the personnel who were
13 handling the case, Tom Wickman being in charge of the
14 detectives handling the Ramsey case and Tom Trujillo
15 being the lead detective?
16 A And coordinating the investigation.
17 Q And your job to coordinate the
18 investigation?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Right. And so when you took on the more
21 expanded role in March of 1998, that hierarchy as
22 such did not change, Wickman still was in charge
23 responding to you?
24 A (Deponent nods head.)
25 Q You were managing the detectives?

23

1 A Correct.
2 Q And coordinating the investigation?
3 A Correct.
4 Q Trujillo remained the lead detective?
5 A Correct.
6 Q Did Steve Thomas ever have the role of
7 lead detective in the Ramsey investigation?
8 A Not under my command, no.
9 Q Do you know whether prior to your taking
10 on the case in October of '97 Mr. Thomas ever had
11 been given the role of lead detective?
12 A I have been told no."​

Steve Thomas in Wolf v. Ramseys:

"Q. As I understand it initially Tom Trujillo and Linda Ardnt were the two designated co-lead detectives on the case, JonBenet Ramsey case, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And then after Arndt was removed, did Tom Wickman take that place, did he become the lead detective?

A. Tom Wickman or Tom Trujillo?

Q. You tell me whether it was Wickman or Trujillo.

A. No, because there was no real designation at that point.

Q. Were you ever designated by the department as the lead detective or co-lead detective on the case?

A. There were four or five detectives who were designated as primary detectives who worked this case full time with no other assignments.

Q. My question was were you ever designated by the Boulder Police Department as the lead detective or a co-lead detective on the JonBenet Ramsey case?

A. No, after Ardnt left -- actually, prior to Arndt leaving, that designation was not being used in the manner you describe it.​

It really does not matter if Steve Thomas was the lead detective, one of the lead detectives, one of the investigating detectives or the detective that bought everybody coffee. He was there and had access to the case file and evidence and was capable of analyzing facts.

JMO

 

[DeeDee249]

ML was law enforcement. Her "clearing" of the family had legal significance then and now. You certainly don't see the news media speculating about Burke or John now.

DA Lacy did NOT clear the family prior to Patsy's death in 2006.

The media cannot speculate about BR. Not then, not now. JR is fair game. Her clearing had significance only to her. It had no legal status.

 

[MyBelle]

The media cannot speculate about BR. Not then, not now. JR is fair game. Her clearing had significance only to her. It had no legal status.

The media has not been speculating about JR for the same reason they are not speculating about BR: because DA Lacy cleared them. There are ethics involved and once a suspect is cleared, the media isn't going to speculate without a law enforcement source. That's just the way it works. The media and law enforcement do adhere to a standard of practice.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

The media has not been speculating about JR for the same reason they are not speculating about BR: because DA Lacy cleared them. There are ethics involved and once a suspect is cleared, the media isn't going to speculate without a law enforcement source. That's just the way it works. The media and law enforcement do adhere to a standard of practice.

That is just so wrong.

 

[lawstudent]

The Grand Jury was provided evidence the public has not been provided. The witness testimony is evidence as are any records that may have been subpoenaed.

While the police investigation may have been flawed, I do not believe the individual investigators were all incompetent.

"A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich" - I know that's been quoted here before. The standard for indictment is so low - I can't give much credit to that. I agree, however, that they do have evidence we don't have, and if we had it, that would be helpful.

I don't think most of the police were incompetent - it's just that it was a weird situation and they couldn't have anticipated what would happen. As a result of the way things unfolded, there are a lot more shady things that people can twist around. I don't know if the initial crime scene contamination would have made a huge difference, but it just seems baffling to me that they never made more progress.

 

[lawstudent]

That is just so wrong.

I actually believe that was the standard operating procedure at the time of the JonBenet case - since then, the media has lost almost all its ethics, but they seem to have just forgotten about the Burke speculation. If something brought it up again, I think they'd be all over it. But I don't think most of the public thinks a little boy did it, so they don't want to get people angry, especially as Burke keeps such a low profile. I don't think most people want the whole thing dug up again, but if juicy info came out, then I do think the media would look into it extensively, like with the Ramsey grand jury stuff.

 

[Linda7NJ]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14914&page=3

Excellent thread.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bettybaby00]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14914&page=3

Excellent thread.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for posting.

That was the line that jumped out at me immediately when I first read the affidavit.. It also felt as if I was reading a new version of "Who's on First?"

 

[bettybaby00]

"A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich" - I know that's been quoted here before. The standard for indictment is so low - I can't give much credit to that. I agree, however, that they do have evidence we don't have, and if we had it, that would be helpful.

I don't think most of the police were incompetent - it's just that it was a weird situation and they couldn't have anticipated what would happen. As a result of the way things unfolded, there are a lot more shady things that people can twist around. I don't know if the initial crime scene contamination would have made a huge difference, but it just seems baffling to me that they never made more progress.

The "first 48" were a disaster and created a perfect storm, which made a good deal of those events fall in the Rs favor.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Remember this...?

Can you actually see well
Enough to read the article?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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:

If the theory does not stand up to questioning and debate than it is not a theory founded in evidence.
The question on this thread is was burke involved?
That means a discussion based on both sides.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't believe it's fair to enter a debate entrenched in a preconceived notion based on nothing but gut feelings. The debate shouldn't be entered unless prepared. IMO
If no independent research, reading the plethora of sources that support the theory, it helps to know & understand any theory before attempting to refute it. it's not fair to others that did and are discussing it. YKWIM?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

I don't believe it's fair to enter a debate entrenched in a preconceived notion based on nothing but gut feelings. The debate shouldn't be entered unless prepared. IMO

Absolutely agreed.

If no independent research, reading the plethora of sources that support the theory it helps to know & understand any theory before attempting to refute it. it's not fair to others that did and are discussing it. YKWIM?

Knowing and understanding are separate cognitive categories. I have studied Kolar's theory, and I know his theory well. Kolar, like his theory, is not infallible. IMO, it's not fair to make claims, then refuse to source them when requested. If one cannot recall the source for any particular claim, then what makes one so certain their recall of the event in question is error-free? YKWIM?

 

[Chewy]

Absolutely agreed.
Knowing and understanding are separate cognitive categories. I have studied Kolar's theory, and I know his theory well. Kolar, like his theory, is not infallible. IMO, it's not fair to make claims, then refuse to source them when requested. If one cannot recall the source for any particular claim, then what makes one so certain their recall of the event in question is error-free? YKWIM?

Excellent point. I've seen in another thread someone asking for evidence and in this thread as well. Evidence please and the accusation is then levied that the person is a IDI fanatic and refuses to face the facts.

Um what facts? :truce: I have seen people take evidence like "Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl" and um...yeah? My kids fingerprints are on a lot of things in the house he lives in and on the dishes he uses. Evidence needs to be specific and meaningful.

Example "HOW were Burke's fingerprints on the bowl? Was it just one print? Were the prints aligned in such a way that it suggests he handled the bowl at length?"

I don't understand the way people refuse to back up statements with evidence? :truce:

 

[MyBelle]

That is just so wrong.

You may not agree with it but that is still the way it works. The media adheres to the guidelines agreed upon with the Bar Association. You are not going to see any media outlet speculating about JR or BR's involvement in the crime unless LE is the source of the information.