Grand Jury Testimony

New Posts

T

Toltec

New Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
1,644
Reaction score
35
Website
www.
I have read several times that Burke had testified to the Grand Jury that he indeed owned hi-tek shoes. Doug Stine allegedly testified to the same thing.

Is this factual information and where did it start and who started it? How did part of Burke's testimony get leaked?

Does anyone know of any more leaked testimony from the Grand Jury proceedings leaked to the press?
 
Toltec, according to Ryan Ross, legal affairs writer based in Denver:

Videotapes of the [1997, 1998, 2000] interviews [conducted by LE] were given late last year [2002] to NBC, CNN, and CBS by, of all people, the Ramsey's attorney, L. Lin Wood of Atlanta. The networks didn't seem to know what to do with them. NBC hasn't used them at all as far as I have been able to tell. CBS cited them briefly during a "48 Hours" segment. And all CNN did was give them to Larry King, who gave Ramsey attorney Wood yet another platform to defend his clients. If Wood's motive in releasing the videotapes was to use them to his clients' PR advantage and pre-empt a damaging leak from police, it worked like a charm.

As it happens, these interviews are a treasure chest of information. They contain the most complete account of statements by John and Patsy Ramsey. They also reveal the most thorough detailing of the evidence against them, including the first glimpse into evidence heard by the grand jury impaneled in 1998 to investigate the slaying. And they provide a key to understanding the case.

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

IMO
 
Ivy, John and Patsy were not subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury, and did not testify.

Burke did testify, but like others who were subpoenaed to testify, his testimony has not been made public.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Burke told the grand jury he owned Hi Tech-brand boots.

No such boots or shoes with the Hi Tech logo were found during the 7 days the BPD searched the Ramsey home, grounds, and automobiles.
 
LP...from the same article whose link I posted above:

And the mystery of the Hi-Tec boot imprint was solved in grand jury testimony. Prosecutors disclosed in the 2000 interviews of the Ramseys that Burke and one of his friends had told jurors that Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots — something his parents said they somehow overlooked or forgot when they told authorities no one in the family owned such a boot, even though there is a distinctive compass on the boot.

If you would like to email the article's author, Ryan Ross, and dispute the issue with him, you can obtain his email address by clicking his bio link.

From his bio: Ryan Ross is a legal affairs writer based in Denver. He has been published in the Washington Post, the National Law Journal, the ABA Journal and Legal Times, among other publications, and has twice appeared as an expert on "Nightline."

IMO
 
Ivy said:
And the mystery of the Hi-Tec boot imprint was solved in grand jury testimony. Prosecutors disclosed in the 2000 interviews of the Ramseys that Burke and one of his friends had told jurors that Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots ? something his parents said they somehow overlooked or forgot when they told authorities no one in the family owned such a boot, even though there is a distinctive compass on the boot.
Click to expand...


Burke definitely owned Hi-Tec boots. Doug Stine and Fleet White III, both of them Burke's friend, testified in front of the grand jury, so either one of the two boys could have revealed that Burke owned Hi-Tecs. Fleet White Sr. knew it all along.

JMO
 
BlueCrab said:
Burke owned Hi-Tecs. Fleet White Sr. knew it all along.
Click to expand...
I don't buy that for one minute, BlueCrab. Fleet was on very good terms with Thomas, yet Thomas never knew the boots belonged to Burke. Fleet knew they were looking for Hi-Tecs, everybody did, it was in PMPT. And Fleet would have told Thomas about Burke owning them.
 
Shylock said:
I don't buy that for one minute, BlueCrab. Fleet was on very good terms with Thomas, yet Thomas never knew the boots belonged to Burke. Fleet knew they were looking for Hi-Tecs, everybody did, it was in PMPT. And Fleet would have told Thomas about Burke owning them.
Click to expand...


Fleet White: "What would you say if I told you the Ramseys owned Hi-Tec shoes?"

From the National Enquirer September 17, 2002: "The police learned that JonBenet's brother Burke had a pair of Hi-Tec hiking boots," said a source close to the investigation.

"Patsy has wondered if Fleet should be a suspect in the grisly murder, but in a twist of fate, Fleet's son was among the first to help link the Hi-Tec shoes to Burke."

"Police didn't just go with information from Fleet's son and other friends," said the source. "They ultimately found more proof that Burke used to have a pair of Hi-Tec boots".

The Ramseys deny Burke ever owned Hi-Tec boots but, IMO, you can chalk that up as just one more lie from the Ramseys in their failed attempts to distant Burke from the crime.

JMO
 
Ivy, during the year 2000 interviews (which can be read online since they were made public by Lin Wood), BPD interviewers told Patsy that they had been told that Burke had said that Patsy had bought him boots with compasses on them (or on the shoelaces of the boots) before 1996. When questioned about Burke's telling that, when, where, and to whom, the interviewers hinted that Burke may have said to the grand jury, but would not reveal more than that.

It was never made clear if Burke was asked about Hi-Tech brand boots or about high tech-type boots, or if any distinction between the two terms was made to him.

Burke was 11 1/2 when he appeared before the grand jury. If he was asked about shoes he had at age 9 1/2 or younger, how much would he even remember?

Was he even asked? How or what did he reply? We don't know because grand jury testimony has not been revealed.

We can't depend on BPD interrogators/investigators to represent the truth when questioning witnesses because they are not limited to making only truthful statements.

There are no Hi-Tech brand boots that belonged to Burke or any Ramsey in police possession, and no proof that any of the Ramseys, including Burke, ever owned any shoe made by Hi-Tech.
 
"We can't depend on BPD interrogators/investigators to represent the truth when questioning witnesses because they are not limited to making only truthful statements."

Again, but do they represent the truth when they say Burke is not a viable suspect?

Just when do they represent the truth and when do they not?

How do you differentiate?
 
LP, law enforcement was satisfied that Burke owned Hi Tec shoes and that Burke made the footprint, so apparently Burke DID testify to the grand jury that he owned Hi Tec shoes around the time of his sister's death. Why is it so important to you to believe he didn't own Hi Tecs? Is it because Smit insists that the print was probably made the night JonBenet died, and you, like the Ramseys, are doing everything you can to try to distance Burke from what happened that night?
 
It's important to me to establish what is factual and what is not, as far as has been revealed to us through evidence.

I put more faith in what LE members are willing to say publicly than what is insinuated or hinted at during interrogation of suspects. Burke has been cleared, and in public statements Thomas, Smit, Kane, Hunter, Keenan, etc have made that clear.

I find it abhorrent that the child Burke is continued to be accused by some forum posters although there is no accusation from LE, not even the suggestion from LE. In fact, there is denial from LE involved in the case at all levels that Burke is or ever was a viable suspect.
 
LovelyPigeon said:
It's important to me to establish what is factual and what is not ... Burke has been cleared,
Click to expand...


LovelyPigeon, the truth is important to all of us, so I repeat to you for about the tenth time -- Burke has never been cleared, and that is factual.

JMO
 
And for what I'm sure must be more than the 11th time--I believe Burke has been cleared, and that he is not now and never was a serious, viable suspect.
 
LovelyPigeon said:
And for what I'm sure must be more than the 11th time--I believe Burke has been cleared, and that he is not now and never was a serious, viable suspect.
Click to expand...


Then why the Ramsey lies and the coverup if not to protect Burke? Both you and I agree that neither John nor Patsy killed JonBenet. So are you saying the Ramseys are lying and covering up to protect an intruder?

JMO
 
Well, LP, regardless of whether law enforcement considered Burke a viable suspect, they were satisfied that Burke owned Hi Tec shoes, and that one of those shoes made the print found near JonBenet's body.

IMO
 
I don't know that Boulder LE is satisfied with an explanation of who owned the Hi-Tec footwear that made the impression in the material growing on the floor next to JonBenét's body, or when the impression was made.

I know that Charlie Brennan reported in a single article that an anonymous source claimed that he/she believed the Hi-Tec question was resolved. I know that Lou Smit has stated publically that the issue is not resolved.

The anonymous source Brennan reported about certainly doesn't satisfy my expectations or requirements of evidence, either way.
 
LovelyPigeon said:
I find it abhorrent that the child Burke is continued to be accused by some forum posters although there is no accusation from LE, not even the suggestion from LE. In fact, there is denial from LE involved in the case at all levels that Burke is or ever was a viable suspect.
Click to expand...

There are no viable suspects in this case according to LE. But the forum posters and the rest of the world have a right to think he is a viable suspect. I personally find it abhorrent that those who gave samples and have been cleared as much as Burke has are continually discussed; White, Santa, Barnhill, LHP, Merv Pugh, etc. as viable suspects. I find it appalling that those who are dead whose DNA has cleared them are still being discussed.

All the peripheral people in this case have been interviewed, sampled, again and again more than John and Patsy Ramsey, all without attorneys and all have been cleared, yet the discussion continues as though they were not.

My point: Either the BPD is competent in clearing people or they aren't.

Until this case is solved, everyone seems to be fair game and that includes Burke
 
I don't need to "deal with" competent LE authority suspecting Burke because none does. There are only statements from LE that Burke is not now and never was a viable suspect.

Only posters suspect Burke, who was almost 10 years old at the time.
 
LovelyPigeon said:
I don't need to "deal with" competent LE authority suspecting Burke because none does. There are only statements from LE that Burke is not now and never was a viable suspect.

Only posters suspect Burke, who was almost 10 years old at the time.
Click to expand...

And only posters suspect Santa, Helgoth, the Pughs, Fleet White, et al.

Who are the "competent" LE authorities you speak of?
 
LovelyPigeon said:
I don't need to "deal with" competent LE authority suspecting Burke
Click to expand...
What you need to deal with is hypocritical logic that causes some posters (no names mentioned) to conclude that LE was so incompetent when suspecting the Ramseys, but yet soooooo competent when not suspecting Burke.

Just how does that work, LovelyPigeon? PLEASE explain it to us. (Enquiring minds want to know!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 199 more.
Total: 3,575 (members: 200, guests: 3,375)

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
3,375
Total visitors
3,575
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,764
Messages
17,958,554
Members
228,603
Latest member
megalow
Back
Top