PDA

View Full Version : Lawyers for Fox News



candy
02-07-2004, 08:16 PM
Three lawyers for Fox News in New York, Jason Conti, Dori Ann Hainswirth and Trina Hunn have applied for pro hac vice status in Georgia for this case. They have all designated Judson Graves of Alston& Bird, LLP as their local Atlanta attorney.

Imon128
02-07-2004, 08:36 PM
Three lawyers for Fox News in New York, Jason Conti, Dori Ann Hainswirth and Trina Hunn have applied for pro hac vice status in Georgia for this case. They have all designated Judson Graves of Alston& Bird, LLP as their local Atlanta attorney.


Candy, can you put that in layman terms for us lawyer unsavvy folks, and what this means? Thanks....

Ivy
02-08-2004, 05:10 PM
I think it means that Fox isn't planning to weenie out and settle.

gretchen
02-08-2004, 05:19 PM
I think it means that Fox isn't planning to weenie out and settle.


I hope you are right Ivy, but I have the feeling that Fox will settle. It would be wonderful though if Fox stood up against the Ramsey's and their sleeze ball attorney.

tipper
02-08-2004, 06:08 PM
Candy, can you put that in layman terms for us lawyer unsavvy folks, and what this means? Thanks....It means "for the occasion" as in they want to be allowed to represent FOX in this case even though they aren't admitted to the Georgia bar.

SisterSocks
02-08-2004, 06:45 PM
It means "for the occasion" as in they want to be allowed to represent FOX in this case even though they aren't admitted to the Georgia bar.


I hope they battle til the end-------- :woohoo: I don't cares who wins ....

candy
02-08-2004, 09:10 PM
Those three lawyers I mentioned from Fox News in New York are actually the defendants in this case. They are lawyers for Fox News and have asked for legal standing in Georgia, to fight this case and have retained local counsel in Atlanta as is necessary when you are applying pro hac vice.

Blazeboy3
02-09-2004, 04:03 AM
Three lawyers for Fox News in New York, Jason Conti, Dori Ann Hainswirth and Trina Hunn have applied for pro hac vice status in Georgia for this case. They have all designated Judson Graves of Alston& Bird, LLP as their local Atlanta attorney.

candy: Thanks for the info but why is this info relevant(URL/info Help please +?)? ... THANK YOU!!! ;) ;) ;)

LovelyPigeon
02-09-2004, 08:40 AM
Those three lawyers are the defendants? Please explain.

The suit filing defines the defendant as:

Defendant Fox News Network, LLC, doing business as Fox News Channel (hereinafter "Fox News") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business being located at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036.

Nehemiah
02-09-2004, 09:00 AM
Those three lawyers are the defendants? Please explain.

The suit filing defines the defendant as:

Defendant Fox News Network, LLC, doing business as Fox News Channel (hereinafter "Fox News") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business being located at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036.


I took it to mean they are defending Fox News in this case.

IMO

LovelyPigeon
02-10-2004, 12:13 AM
That's what I thought they were, too, Nehemiah, but candy's post seems to indicate they are defendants rather than lawyers representing the defendant. That's why I posed the question.

candy
02-16-2004, 11:55 PM
Judge Thrash approved pro hac vice status in this lawsuit for Fox lawyers Jason Conti, Dori Ann Hainswirth and Trina Hunn.

Sorry LP, I misspoke. These lawyers represent the defendant, Fox News in New York. They are not personally defendants, but lawyers.

popcorn
02-17-2004, 08:36 AM
What exactly did FOX News do that is in need of defense? Do the Ramseys claim FOX news killed JonBenet or is this for Burke's retirement fund?


Were those lawyers hired special for the case or were they already employees of FOX.

BlueCrab
02-17-2004, 09:51 AM
What exactly did FOX News do that is in need of defense? Do the Ramseys claim FOX news killed JonBenet or is this for Burke's retirement fund?


Lin Wood, in behalf of John, Patsy, and Burke Ramsey, filed a $16 million defamation lawsuit against Fox News network on December 23, 2003 because a Fox reporter said "There has never been any evidence to link an intruder to JonBenet's brutal murder".

http://people.aol.com/people/news/now/0,10958,567981,00.html

JMO

Honeybee
02-17-2004, 10:53 PM
The Fox News reporter who made that statement, Carol McKinley, has a history of covering the Ramseys, i.e. she got them to agree to an interview after they moved to Atlanta and said she was going to ask them tough questions. It turned out to be a "Love in." I don't know why, but IMO McKinley wimped out.

Also, I believe there is plenty of evidence to indicate that an intruder murdered JBR, so in that case, the statement she made is incorrect. The Ramseys and their attorney (who never loses a case, the defendants always wisely settle) believe it to have been slander.

All in IMO, of course.

BlueCrab
02-17-2004, 11:17 PM
The Fox News reporter who made that statement, Carol McKinley, has a history of covering the Ramseys, i.e. she got them to agree to an interview after they moved to Atlanta and said she was going to ask them tough questions. It turned out to be a "Love in." I don't know why, but IMO McKinley wimped out.

Also, I believe there is plenty of evidence to indicate that an intruder murdered JBR, so in that case, the statement she made is incorrect. The Ramseys and their attorney (who never loses a case, the defendants always wisely settle) believe it to have been slander.

All in IMO, of course.

I think this case is absolutely ludicrous. If the Ramseys have their way then crimes won't even be able to be discussed. The Ramseys said there was an intruder; in rebuttal Fox News said there wasn't any evidence of an intruder.

Burke's immunity as a juvenile doesn't enter into this case, so I think the judge will grant a Fox News motion to dismiss before the case goes too far forward.

JMO

candy
02-24-2004, 01:07 PM
The Ramseys have substantially amended their original complaint against Fox News, adding an additional thirteen pages to the original complaint:

Among them, iss "Exhibit B", which consists of the Affidavit by Alex Hunter, saying that Burke is not a suspect in this case.

BlueCrab
02-24-2004, 01:38 PM
The Ramseys have substantially amended their original complaint against Fox News, adding an additional thirteen pages to the original complaint:

Among them, iss "Exhibit B", which consists of the Affidavit by Alex Hunter, saying that Burke is not a suspect in this case.

That affidavit about Burke is a fraud and I can prove it. It was drafted by Lin Wood, not by any of the attorneys on Alex Hunter's staff. Hunter signed it after quibbling somewhat with Wood about the wording to make sure it didn't say Burke was cleared. Burke has never been cleared and Hunter knows Burke can NEVER be cleared. That's why all of the tricky wording in the affidavit.

No one in the case has ever been officially classified a "suspect", not even John or Patsy. So when the affidavit says Burke has never been considered a suspect, it's not a relevant statement. It doesn't mean a thing. NO ONE IS A SUSPECT in the case. Burke and all of the other principles are called "witnesses" or "under the umbrella of suspicion", but none are ever called "suspects". The tricky wording of the affidavit, cleverly designed to mislead the reader, makes the affidavit a shameless fraud.

JMO

DocWatson
02-24-2004, 01:39 PM
The Ramseys have substantially amended their original complaint against Fox News, adding an additional thirteen pages to the original complaint:

Among them, iss "Exhibit B", which consists of the Affidavit by Alex Hunter, saying that Burke is not a suspect in this case.
Is there a link to this Exhibit? This will really burst BlueCrab's bubble as he has been INSISTENT that no LE has ever "cleared" Burke. I can't WAIT to see the verbal gymnastics he'll resort to in attempting to "explain away" this latest development...

BlueCrab
02-24-2004, 02:04 PM
Is there a link to this Exhibit? This will really burst BlueCrab's bubble as he has been INSISTENT that no LE has ever "cleared" Burke. I can't WAIT to see the verbal gymnastics he'll resort to in attempting to "explain away" this latest development...


My dear Watson, you really must run faster and catch up with this case. It's elementary that the affidavit Lin Wood is trotting out again is the fraudulent one written by Lin Wood himself but signed by Alex Hunter on October 12, 2000. It's the same affidavit I was referring to in my post above (post #18).

Burke Ramsey has never been cleared by anyone of authority in the killing of JonBenet and he never will be cleared -- not by Hunter, or Keenan, or Beckner, or a judge, nor anyone else. They can't afford to lie under oath.

JMO

FULTON
02-24-2004, 02:12 PM
The Fox News reporter who made that statement, Carol McKinley, has a history of covering the Ramseys, i.e. she got them to agree to an interview after they moved to Atlanta and said she was going to ask them tough questions. It turned out to be a "Love in." I don't know why, but IMO McKinley wimped out.

Also, I believe there is plenty of evidence to indicate that an intruder murdered JBR, so in that case, the statement she made is incorrect. The Ramseys and their attorney (who never loses a case, the defendants always wisely settle) believe it to have been slander.

All in IMO, of course.



How do we know which side intiated the settelments??? What evidence can be cited as to be ONLY from an intruder and not from somone inside the house???

LovelyPigeon
02-24-2004, 02:19 PM
There is nothing fradulent about the affadavit that Hunter signed regarding Burke's innocence.

I do not know who actually wrote the document that Hunter signed but even if Lin Wood wrote it that would not make it fradulent. Hunter signed it and was happy to do so as it reflects his personal position and the Boulder District Attorney's Office position on Burke Ramsey.

In addition, Hunter has stated publically that Burke is not a suspect and never was.

LE went through the motions of considering Burke a suspect because he was inside the house that night, including taking handwriting exemplars from him and perusing historical samples of Burke's handwriting. Burke was asked for hair, blood, and DNA samples also, and gave them.

Accusing Burke of being responsible for his sister's death, sexual assault, and/or writing the note is something I find odious and irresponsible.

BlueCrab
02-24-2004, 02:35 PM
There is nothing fradulent about the affadavit that Hunter signed regarding Burke's innocence.

I do not know who actually wrote the document that Hunter signed but even if Lin Wood wrote it that would not make it fradulent. Hunter signed it and was happy to do so as it reflects his personal position and the Boulder District Attorney's Office position on Burke Ramsey.

In addition, Hunter has stated publically that Burke is not a suspect and never was.

LE went through the motions of considering Burke a suspect because he was inside the house that night, including taking handwriting exemplars from him and perusing historical samples of Burke's handwriting. Burke was asked for hair, blood, and DNA samples also, and gave them.

Accusing Burke of being responsible for his sister's death, sexual assault, and/or writing the note is something I find odious and irresponsible.




If Burke has been cleared, then why doesn't someone of authority just say so? ANSWER: They can't.

JMO

TLynn
02-24-2004, 02:42 PM
There has never been a "suspect" in this case. The Ramseys are the only ones who have been identified as "under the umbrella of suspicion." Clever wording - but never suspects.

How can you clear someone who has never been a suspect?

candy
02-24-2004, 03:28 PM
#34 -38 from the Amended complaint:

34. The statement uttered by Ms. McKinley that "detectives say they had good reason to suspect the Ramseys" is a false statement of fact and defamed Burke Ramsey.

35. Boulder Police Detectives and the District Attorney's Detectives have never said that Burke Ramsey was a suspect in the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

36. Boulder Police Detectives and the District Attorney's Detectives have never considered Burke Ramsey to be a suspect in the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

37. No incriminating evidence or good reason has ever existed linking Burke Ramsey to the murder of his sister or causing Boulder Police Detectives and the District Attorney's Detectives to consider him to be a suspect in the investigation of her murder.

38. Burke Ramsey has never been a suspect in the investigation of the murder of his sister as conclusively established by the October 12, 2000 sworn affidavit of former Boulder District Attorney Alexander M. Hunter, the original of said affidavit being attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and by reference made a part hereof.

LovelyPigeon
02-24-2004, 03:43 PM
BC, it's been said, repeatedly, by several authorities.

Your choice has been to ignore that Burke is not, has not been, and has never warranted being a suspect. You make that your choice to further your personal pursuit of Burke as a killer.

A wise man said There are none so blind as those who will not see.

BlueCrab
02-24-2004, 03:48 PM
#34 -38 from the Amended complaint:

34. The statement uttered by Ms. McKinley that "detectives say they had good reason to suspect the Ramseys" is a false statement of fact and defamed Burke Ramsey.

35. Boulder Police Detectives and the District Attorney's Detectives have never said that Burke Ramsey was a suspect in the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

36. Boulder Police Detectives and the District Attorney's Detectives have never considered Burke Ramsey to be a suspect in the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

37. No incriminating evidence or good reason has ever existed linking Burke Ramsey to the murder of his sister or causing Boulder Police Detectives and the District Attorney's Detectives to consider him to be a suspect in the investigation of her murder.

38. Burke Ramsey has never been a suspect in the investigation of the murder of his sister as conclusively established by the October 12, 2000 sworn affidavit of former Boulder District Attorney Alexander M. Hunter, the original of said affidavit being attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and by reference made a part hereof.



The Ramseys are trying to squeeze Burke into this complaint as an afterthought, because without Burke the case would have been dismissed almost immediately. But IMO Burke won't fit. On motion by Fox News the amendment to add Burke will likely be disallowed because of irrelevancy. There won't be any settlement in this case. It'll eventually be tossed.

JMO

candy
02-24-2004, 06:36 PM
I'm going to post the Burke segments new to the Amended complaint in addition to the ones I already posted. The Ramseys inserted Burke a lot in the Amended complaint. There are other things new, Exhibit A is a legal transcript of the Fox News broadcast in question, etc.

39. Prior to the broadcast of the December 27, Ramsey segment, knowlegeable officials of the City of Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney's office had publicly stated that Burke Ramsey was not a suspect in connection with his sister's murder and was not being looked at as a possible suspect.

45. Defendant knowingly published the false and defamatory statements contained in the December 27 Ramsey segment about Burke Ramsey being a suspect without corroboration and without any reliable, trustworthy or credible sources for said statements.

46. The fact that Boulder Police Detectives and the District Attorney's Detectives had never considered Burke Ramsey to be a suspect in connection with the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey was well known to Fox News and Ms. McKinley prior to the broadcast of the Ramsey segment as it had been the subject of substantial
print and broadcast media coverage prior to December 27, 2002.

53. At the time of the broadcast on December 27, 2002, Fox News and Ms. McKinley had actual knowledge that the statements that detectives had good reason to suspect Burke Ramsey and that there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to (JonBenet's) brutal murder were false statements.

57. As a direct and proximate result of the false and defamatory statements broadcast by Fox News, millions of members of the public were led to believe that Burke Ramsey was considered by detectives to be a suspect in the investigation of the murder of his sister.

66. Despite the overwhelming evidence that the statement that the statements that detectives had good reason to suspect Burke Ramsey and that there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to (JonBenet's) brutal murder were false statements, Fox News refused to publish the requested formal retraction and correction.

Shylock
02-24-2004, 07:10 PM
Your choice has been to ignore that Burke is not, has not been, and has never warranted being a suspect.

No, OUR choice has been to point out the HYPOCRISY of those who continue to say Burke is not a suspect. Only a hypocrite could claim that the Boulder authorities were so incompetent that they wrongly built a case against the Ramseys, but yet these same authorities were competent enough to clear Burke.

Sorry, you CAN'T have your cake and eat it too! Burke is one of the three prime suspects in this case and he always will be.

Shylock
02-24-2004, 07:15 PM
53. At the time of the broadcast on December 27, 2002, Fox News and Ms. McKinley had actual knowledge that the statements that detectives had good reason to suspect Burke Ramsey and that there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to (JonBenet's) brutal murder were false statements.
Candy,
I'm missing something. Did Carol McKinley mention Burke's name in that broadcast? I thought all she said was there has never been any real evidence of an intruder.

LovelyPigeon
02-24-2004, 09:26 PM
Shylock, Burke is obviously thought by you to be a killer regardless of statements by law enforcement representatives to the contrary.

There is no LE agency that agrees with you. None. Burke is not a suspect, and has never been a suspect because nothing but nothing warranted his being a suspect.

Are you asking candy if the entire suit is based on one statement by Carol McKinley?

Shylock
02-25-2004, 09:18 AM
There is no LE agency that agrees with you. None. Burke is not a suspect, and has never been a suspect because nothing but nothing warranted his being a suspect.

Dead wrong, LovelyPigeon. EVERY competent law enforcement agency in the country agrees with me. Ask ANY competent homicide investigator and you will be told in no uncertain terms that the only thing required to commit a murder is OPPORTUNITY and ABILITY.

FACT--Burke was in the house during the murder--OPPORTUNITY

FACT--Burke could swing an object and crack another child's skull--ABILITY

FACT--Burke could have tied the cord around both the paint stick and his sister's neck--ABILITY

Those are hard FACTS, Lovelypigeon. Any person who disputes ANY of the three either doesn't know what they are talking about, or they just want to play silly little mind games with themself.

DocWatson
02-25-2004, 05:02 PM
My dear Watson, you really must run faster and catch up with this case. It's elementary that the affidavit Lin Wood is trotting out again is the fraudulent one written by Lin Wood himself but signed by Alex Hunter on October 12, 2000. It's the same affidavit I was referring to in my post above (post #18).

Burke Ramsey has never been cleared by anyone of authority in the killing of JonBenet and he never will be cleared -- not by Hunter, or Keenan, or Beckner, or a judge, nor anyone else. They can't afford to lie under oath.

JMO
If you'll look at the time of your post #18, you'll realize I was writing my reply at the same time you were writing yours. I am well aware of your groundless objections to the October 12, 2000 affidavit. As Candy has just posted, there are several clear statements in the complaint about Burke's status as suspect. If these are left uncontested in the response to the complaint, they are presumed to be factually correct in the eyes of the law. Given that the Fox News account itself alluded to Burke's not having been a suspect and having been "cleared" my guess is these won't be contested! In short, you're wrong, case closed, game over.

candy
03-11-2004, 09:01 AM
Fox News is adding another lawyer, Slade Metcalf from New York to it's legal team. The Fox side has five lawyers working on this case as of now.

popcorn
03-11-2004, 05:44 PM
The affidavit produced by Alex Hunter became null and void when Burke changed his story and confessed he actually was awake.

BloodshotEye
03-11-2004, 10:26 PM
Wouldn't it be within Fox News' rights, as a news reporting/analysis entity, to suggest that perhaps person A, B or C SHOULD be considered as a suspect? Shouldn't they be able to "wonder out loud", and ask, "Have police considered person A, as being possibly involved?".

Additionally, wouldn't Fox News be able to report on theories assembled by others, and not be responsible for the accuracy of the theory? After all, that's what Court TV often does - speculate. If Fox included those sacrosanct words such as, "potential theory or suspect", "possible", "one of many theories", would/should they be held accountable for what the Ramsey's believe to be damaged reputation?

This is a rather curious situation resulting from reporting various aspects about a case.

LovelyPigeon
03-11-2004, 10:54 PM
popcorn, Burke didn't change his story. He told police that he was pretending to be asleep when his parents looked into his room, and again when a police officer looked into his room.

DA Hunter was aware of Burke's statements to police long before he signed an affidavit to Burke's innocence.

BlueCrab
03-11-2004, 10:58 PM
The affidavit produced by Alex Hunter became null and void when Burke changed his story and confessed he actually was awake.

popcorn,

Would you mind providing us with more detail about your comment? What makes the affidavit null and void? Thanks.

JMO

BlueCrab
03-11-2004, 11:27 PM
DA Hunter was aware of Burke's statements to police long before he signed an affidavit to Burke's innocence.


Hunter did not sign an affidavit "to Burke's innocence". He signed an affidavit that Burke is a "witness" and not a "suspect". Of course NO ONE was an official suspect in the Ramsey case, so the affidavit was moot. The affidavit was a trick to make Burke appear to be cleared, but without using the word "cleared". The affidavit wasn't even written by Hunter. It was written by Lin Wood and simply signed by Hunter after some back and forth editing of the tricky wording.

If the D.A. or anyone else of authority in Boulder want to clear Burke all they have to do is say so, just like they did for John Andrew and Melinda. But please don't hold your breath waiting for them to say Burke has been cleared. IMO they can't without going on record with a lie because Burke can't be cleared -- he killed JonBenet.

Just my opinion.

popcorn
03-12-2004, 07:31 AM
http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/10122000hunterafidavittowood.htm

Th affidavit from 2000 was produced under false pretenses. Alex Hunter had information from the Ramseys stating Burke was asleep. It wasn't until 2001 they admitted this was incorrect. Hunter used all the information as a foundation to make that document. Weither the Ramseys knowingly or unknowingly knew Burke was awake, the truthfullness of every statement made by the parents comes up for review. It doesn't even matter if Butke testified to GJ he was awake. In a nutshell, the witnesses who's information was relied on for the affidavit have changed their story. That renders Hunter's decision null and void. In the same token, as the open case investigation progresses to include new documents, interviews, and lab evidence the affidavit is open to rebuttal.

IMO

Barbara
03-12-2004, 09:01 AM
http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/10122000hunterafidavittowood.htm

Th affidavit from 2000 was produced under false pretenses. Alex Hunter had information from the Ramseys stating Burke was asleep. It wasn't until 2001 they admitted this was incorrect. Hunter used all the information as a foundation to make that document. Weither the Ramseys knowingly or unknowingly knew Burke was awake, the truthfullness of every statement made by the parents comes up for review. It doesn't even matter if Butke testified to GJ he was awake. In a nutshell, the witnesses who's information was relied on for the affidavit have changed their story. That renders Hunter's decision null and void. In the same token, as the open case investigation progresses to include new documents, interviews, and lab evidence the affidavit is open to rebuttal.

IMO

Excellent Popcorn! Of course, there are those who will continue to be blinded by the mere idea that Burke is a viable suspect in this case. He is officially a witness and now that it is out in the open that the documents were written under false pretenses, we can only wonder if he was only "pretending" to be asleep around 12 or 1 a.m. that morning.

That family has excellent pretending skills!

popcorn
03-12-2004, 09:38 AM
Not to mention you can be a witness and suspect both, it is not an exclusionary term. As a matter of fact to demonstrate the opposite, how can you be a suspect unless you are first believed to be a witness?

LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 06:24 PM
popcorn, Hunter had the information from Burke's interviews before the parents had the information.

BPD knew what Burke said about being pretending to be asleep when his parents, and then a police officer, looked into his room as soon as he said it, because it was the BPD he told that to. His parents didn't know until after the grand jury concluded.

Hunter's affidavit is a legal and decisive statement.

LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 06:27 PM
Bluecrab, you obviously have a unique way of interpreting Hunter's affadavit about Burke. An incorrectly unique way.

Burke has been cleared, and although he was legally considered--briefly--a suspect for the reason that he was in the house the night JonBenét died, there was never evidence to indicate he should be considered a serious suspect. There have been multiple law enforcement persons connected to the case to have said exactly that.

Shylock
03-14-2004, 06:28 PM
Hunter's affidavit is a legal and decisive statement.

Legal, decisive, outdated, and written by a buffoon. AKA: Worthless.


IMO

LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 06:41 PM
Outdated? Not at all.

Buffoon? No, written by the District Attorney of Boulder County at the time.

LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 07:00 PM
candy, I appreciate your keeping us updated on the process of Ramsey vs Fox News.

I look forward to following each step of the suit.

Shylock
03-14-2004, 07:24 PM
Outdated? Not at all.

Really? And how would you know that Keenan's new investigator isn't targeting Burke as the #1 suspect? Got some inside info to share, LP? Or are you content posting the outdated stuff?...LOL

Burke had the ability and opportunity to commit the killing. He is one the the THREE prime suspects because of those facts.

LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 07:31 PM
Burke isn't a suspect on any LE scope.

Keenan has said publically that an intruder is more likely to have killed JonBenét than the Ramseys.

I expect that Det B e n n e t t is looking at the evidence with neutral eyes, but I do not expect that he sees any reason to suspect 9-year-old Burke as the intruder/killer/sexual attacker.

Shylock
03-14-2004, 07:47 PM
Burke isn't a suspect on any LE scope.

So you do not believe a boy about to turn 10 years old can split the skull of a 6-years old girl with a baseball bat, huh?

Well, ANY LE agency who can correctly figure that one out has Burke on their Top-3 suspect list.

That's the facts, mam. Just because you underestimate the physical ability of a 10 year old boy doesn't remove him from any competent suspect list.

You're #2 on my list now, LovelyPigeon. After I stop at BrotherMoon's house with a 10 year old, a baseball bat, and a wagon load of bricks to bust, I'm heading over to YOUR house for a demonstration.

BlueCrab
03-14-2004, 09:02 PM
Burke has been cleared,


Burke has not been cleared. Please provide an authoritative source in Boulder that states Burke has been cleared. You can't.

Hunter's fraudulent affidavit doesn't say he's cleared. Why don't you e-mail Beckner A/O Keenan and have them state publicly that Burke is cleared. Even though John Andrew and Melinda were publicly cleared, and the word "cleared" was used, I guarantee you they won't say Burke is cleared.

JMO

LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 09:42 PM
I don't need to email anyone to find out if Burke is cleared.

Burke isn't a suspect to any LE involved in this case. And you can't find a quote to justify claiming that he is.

Hunter cleared Burke, not just with the affidavit, but with statements, which I've quoted before. No one, not even Smit & Thomas who dissented on so much, involved with this case suspects Burke.

There is simply no reason to suspect him, and therefore he is not suspect. Period.

Shylock
03-14-2004, 10:46 PM
No one, not even Smit & Thomas who dissented on so much, involved with this case suspects Burke.
I can't speak for Smit. Face it the guy is a looney-tune who thinks the parents couldn't have done it because they prayed with him. But Thomas is a different story.

Thomas has two problems when it comes to Burke. First, he says outright that he is not a "conspiracy theorist". As far as Thomas is concerned, two people make a conspiracy - so if Burke caused JonBenet's death and Patsy covered up for him, that would be a conspiracy and impossible in his mind.

Secondly, Thomas has said Burke couldn't have done it because he didn't have the "wherewithal" to do the entire crime--from killing to staging to note writing. Without a conspiracy, Burke must have done EVERYTHING in Thomas' mind, and that again is impossible.

Thomas shows us in both cases that he has a one-track mind which lacks the imagination required to invision all the possibilities in this case when it comes to Burke.



There is simply no reason to suspect him, and therefore he is not suspect. Period.
You play games with yourself, LovelyPigeon. Consider this:
After recess, one of the girls from a third grade class is missing. Her body is found around the corner of the building next to the playground. Her skull has been bashed in with a hard object. A baseball bat is laying nearby.
During recess, the girls were playing jump-rope and the boys were playing baseball.
Could one of the boys have killed her as the students were returning into the building from recess?

LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 11:34 PM
Lou Smit is a well-respected detective of excellent reputation and a wonderful ability to solve homicides he was assigned to.

Steve Thomas has been asked, and answered, about Burke Ramsey on several public occasions. One of those was in a live chat for GMA:

http://abcnews.go.com/onair/GoodMorningAmerica/000413_stevethomas_chat.html

Moderator at 12:09pm ET
Marilena Diogo writes: "What evidence led you to dismiss the possibility that Burke may have struck his sister without an intent to kill her?"
Steve Thomas at 12:10pm ET
Beyond what we can fairly address in an online chat, there was just no credible evidence whatsoever that Burke was capable or involved in any aspect of this, from writing the ransom note to staging a crime

As for conspiracies, ST believed that PR and JR were involved in a conspiracy when he said:
"The other scenario is that little girl was killed by a family member whom I believe to be her panicked mother, Patsy Ramsey, and that her father John Ramsey opted to protect his wife in the investigation that followed." -also at the GMA url given above

There is no law enforcement involved in the Ramsey case who has any reason to believe that Burke was involved in any way in his sister's murder.

BlueCrab
03-15-2004, 12:07 AM
I don't need to email anyone to find out if Burke is cleared.


Why? Did YOU clear Burke? You must have because no one of authority in Boulder has cleared him.

You won't e-mail Beckner or Keenan because you know they won't give you a straight answer -- if they give you an answer at all. Why won't they respond and simply say Burke has been cleared? They can't. They can't because Burke has NOT been cleared.

Lin Wood was unsuccessful in getting any person of authority in Boulder to say Burke has been cleared, and so will you be unsuccessful. And please forget about using the term "not a suspect" as a substitute term for cleared. Wood and Hunter muddled that "suspect" term to death in the affidavit trying to make it appear Burke was cleared, but without being able to use the word "cleared".

JMO

Shylock
03-15-2004, 12:47 AM
There is no law enforcement involved in the Ramsey case who has any reason to believe that Burke was involved in any way in his sister's murder.

Of course there isn't, LovelyPigeon! Because as the Ramseys are so quick to point out, all the law enforcement in Boulder is a collection of morons and idiots. So how could people with such low mental abilities POSSIBLY properly consider Burke as the suspect he is?!

Any other COMPETENT law enforcenment agency in the country is going to consider Burke one of the three prime suspects.

P.S. LovelyPigeon, you didn't comment on the "school yard" scenerio. What's the matter, can't do it without proving Burke is a valid suspect? :bang: