Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > JonBenet Ramsey

Notices

JonBenet Ramsey What really happened to 6 year old JonBenet? Someone is getting away with murder. All information posted on this site is gained through published documentation on this case. It is strictly opinion only.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-09-2004, 09:58 AM
Thorkim's Avatar
Thorkim Thorkim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 207
Hunter's changes in Lin Wood's affidavit

Tricia is giving permission to link to this thread at FFJ. Thank you to Tricia and Ryan Ross for this. Please go to this link and you will see the changes Hunter made to Lin's affidavit regarding Burke. It is very interesting. I have always thought a male Ramsey was involved in this crime and I am now back (yet again) to my original perp.



http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...5608#post55608
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-09-2004, 10:53 AM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorkim
Tricia is giving permission to link to this thread at FFJ. Thank you to Tricia and Ryan Ross for this. Please go to this link and you will see the changes Hunter made to Lin's affidavit regarding Burke. It is very interesting. I have always thought a male Ramsey was involved in this crime and I am now back (yet again) to my original perp.



http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...5608#post55608


Correct, the changes in the wording of the October 12, 2000 affidavit signed by Alex Hunter but drafted by Lin Wood prove the affidavit to be a fraud. The affidavit tries to make it appear as though Burke has been cleared, but without using the word "cleared". The intent was to mislead, it did mislead, and that is fraud.

Hunter is no dummy, and the fraudulent wording in that affidavit is exactly what was intended. Not only did Hunter graduate from the CU law school at the top of his class, but he also had a team of attorneys available to him as the district attorney of Boulder County. By having Lin Wood draft the tricky wording in the affidavit, instead of someone on his own staff, it was clear what his intent was -- to make it APPEAR Burke was cleared in the killing of JonBenet when he WASN'T cleared. That would provide deceptive information to be used by Wood in Burke lawsuits. That's fraud.

JMO
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-09-2004, 10:57 AM
Thorkim's Avatar
Thorkim Thorkim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 207
I agree Bluecrab, and I thought of you when I saw this at FFJ last night right before I went to bed. I specifically asked Tricia if I might put it here for discussion and she told me yes. I know you have brought this up before and wanted to link to this find. I see the proof now.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-09-2004, 10:58 AM
Jayelles's Avatar
Jayelles Jayelles is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,389
Bc

On this matter, it would appear that you have been right all along :-)
__________________
This is only my opinion

Let the focus be on Madeleine




Together we can make a difference





Alert Viewer in Scotland

Member of Websleuths since April 2000
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-09-2004, 10:59 AM
why_nutt why_nutt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 484
Mysteriously, A Certain Forum has suddenly gone missing, though the non-Ramsey-discussion forums remain, showing that the problem is not site-wide or related to the ISP. I would take this to mean the revelation of this paperwork is most distressing to certain Ramsey defenders, who fear the repercussions of being able to watch a civil lawyer in one state tell a District Attorney in another state what to write in an affidavit.
__________________
"That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too." -- Anne Elk
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-09-2004, 11:02 AM
Barbara Barbara is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 741
Thanks to Thor, Tricia and FFJ for bringing this to us

What I don't understand is how the LE officials in Boulder are not behind bars for the stunts they have pulled. So blatant and yet, the Governor turns a blind eye to the corruption in Boulder. How is it possible (shaking my head) that a civil attorney can dictate an affadavit for a District Attorney to sign so as to allow litigation in civil suits????????? Is it just me or is that just part of the corruption going ignored in Boulder?

Yes, at least now it's on the forums for all to see that Burke is just as viable a suspect as anybody else in this case.
__________________
This is my opinion only
This post may not be copied to any other forum

God Bless America
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-09-2004, 11:14 AM
Jayelles's Avatar
Jayelles Jayelles is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,389
Fog

Quote:
Originally Posted by why_nutt
... I would take this to mean the revelation of this paperwork is most distressing to certain Ramsey defenders, who fear the repercussions of being able to watch a civil lawyer in one state tell a District Attorney in another state what to write in an affidavit.
Could you explain please?
__________________
This is only my opinion

Let the focus be on Madeleine




Together we can make a difference





Alert Viewer in Scotland

Member of Websleuths since April 2000
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-09-2004, 12:05 PM
Shylock Shylock is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by why_nutt
I would take this to mean the revelation of this paperwork is most distressing to certain Ramsey defenders, who fear the repercussions of being able to watch a civil lawyer in one state tell a District Attorney in another state what to write in an affidavit.
Whoa why_nutt, WAY to much credit given! These are people who have been tap dancing around the facts of the 911 tape since Keenan botched its release a while back. Nothing in this case will ever wake them up to reality.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-09-2004, 12:42 PM
Britt Britt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCrab
By having Lin Wood draft the tricky wording in the affidavit, instead of someone on his own staff, it was clear what his intent was -- to make it APPEAR Burke was cleared in the killing of JonBenet when he WASN'T cleared. That would provide deceptive information to be used by Wood in Burke lawsuits. That's fraud
I agree. BC. Why not just refuse to sign it? Why play these silly games to help the Ramseys? Vintage Hunter, isn't it?

Anyway, BCrab, you win the I told you so! award. And thank you to Thorkim and Tricia for bringing this info.

Fascinating that Hunter X'd out the following, proving that the following things are NOT TRUE:

All questions related to Burke Ramsey's possible involvement in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey were resolved to the satisfaction of the investigators and Burke Ramsey has never been viewed by investigators as a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister.

From December 26, 1996 to the date of this Affidavit, Burke Ramsey has not been and is not at present, a suspect in the investigation into the murder of his sister, JonBenet Ramsey.


Clearly, Burke is a suspect.
__________________
The intruder is innocent! JMO
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-09-2004, 01:28 PM
BrotherMoon BrotherMoon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Denver
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara
Is it just me or is that just part of the corruption going ignored in Boulder?
I wouldn't call it corruption. I call it a superiorist attitude that becomes a law unto itself. I call it infantile retention, adults acting like three year olds. Same thing is going on in San Francisco. We know Boulder as ten square miles of heaven surrounded by reality.

Just like an aging child that refuses to be humbled to the larger realities of nature and society, Boulder is slowly turning Heaven into Hell.

What possible political advantage would Owens reap by sticking his hand into that? He like many of the republican leaders in this country are trying to circumvent the Leftists not validate their existence by confronting them. It's the same strategy we have with Cuba, let them rot.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-09-2004, 02:05 PM
Ivy Ivy is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,199
Thanks, Thorkim, for posting the link, and thank you, Tricia. I hadn't seen a copy of the actual affidavit, but I'd read about the fiasco in Ryan Ross's Crime Magazine article, which I've referred to, and provided a link to, in many of my posts.

An aside: I emailed Ross a link to the affidavit containing Patsy's exemplars when Tricia posted the link at FFJ, in case he hadn't seen the actual affidavit. He hadn't. Good work, Tricia.

imo
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-09-2004, 02:47 PM
sissi sissi is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: maryland
Posts: 1,832
All questions related to Burke Ramsey's possible involvement in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey were resolved to the satisfaction of the investigators and Burke Ramsey has never been viewed by investigators as a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister.

From December 26, 1996 to the date of this Affidavit, Burke Ramsey has not been and is not at present, a suspect in the investigation into the murder of his sister, JonBenet Ramsey.

The statement was x'd out because it would have been a LIE to say Burke ,as with everyone in
that home that night ,wasn't considered.
The sentence below the x'ing,states Burke Ramsey has never been considered a suspect! This was not X'd out.
Don't you guys see this?
IMO
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-09-2004, 03:11 PM
Britt Britt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by sissi
The sentence below the x'ing,states Burke Ramsey has never been considered a suspect!
It does not. You are quoting the deleted portion.

The sentence left in says this:

From December 26, 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.

It means exactly what it says: During that time frame (on Hunter's watch), no evidence HAD BEEN DEVELOPED.

If Hunter intended to say Burke has never been considered a suspect! - your quote - he wouldn't have X'd out the sentence stating Burke Ramsey has not been and is not at present, a suspect...
__________________
The intruder is innocent! JMO
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-09-2004, 06:17 PM
sissi sissi is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: maryland
Posts: 1,832
From December 26, 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.

Burke was in the home ,all family members were under consideration,this is what Hunter was trying to make clear. To state he was never a suspect,in the sense all Ramseys were,would have been a lie. He corrected the affidavit by rewriting the sentence as above.
An intruder kill Jonbenet!
Burke is not a suspect,nothing within the investigation hinted he was.
IMO
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-09-2004, 07:25 PM
Shylock Shylock is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,058
Wake up sissi. Hunter is a scumbag. The fact that he is conspiring with the lawyer of the prime suspects in a murder/rape case shows just how unprofessional and incompetent the man was. Nothing Hunter says is of any value in this case. The man was nothing but a big-time loser, and his record shows that began WAY before Ramsey case.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-09-2004, 08:52 PM
Britt Britt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by sissi
Burke was in the home ,all family members were under consideration,this is what Hunter was trying to make clear. To state he was never a suspect,in the sense all Ramseys were,would have been a lie.
If that is true, then why did Hunter delete this: All questions related to Burke Ramsey's possible involvement in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey were resolved to the satisfaction of the investigators...

Why not just cut the last part of the sentence: ...and Burke Ramsey has never been viewed by investigators as a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister.

Cutting just the last portion would accomplish what you describe. That's not what Hunter did. He cut the whole thing.

Quote:
Burke is not a suspect,nothing within the investigation hinted he was.
Then why did Hunter delete this whole sentence: From December 26, 1996 to the date of this Affidavit, Burke Ramsey has not been and is not at present, a suspect in the investigation into the murder of his sister, JonBenet Ramsey.

Why not just cut the "has not been" phrase and leave the rest?

If Burke wasn't a suspect, then why didn't Hunter just say so?
__________________
The intruder is innocent! JMO
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-09-2004, 11:39 PM
Islander Islander is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 35
In paragraph 5 of the Hunter/Wood affidavit, Hunter states that questions about Burke’s involvement in JB’s death were raised “and investigated as part of standard investigative practices and procedures.” Not sure exactly what, if any, the BPD’s standard investigative practices and procedures were at the time, but Hunter’s statement seems to contradict Mike Kane’s statement made on the Dan Abrams Report. Kane stated “the police investigation never excluded anybody with the exception of Burke Ramsey from the focus of the case.” So was Burke thoroughly investigated or not?
__________________
My opinion only
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-10-2004, 09:05 AM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander
In paragraph 5 of the Hunter/Wood affidavit, Hunter states that questions about Burke?s involvement in JB?s death were raised ?and investigated as part of standard investigative practices and procedures.? Not sure exactly what, if any, the BPD?s standard investigative practices and procedures were at the time, but Hunter?s statement seems to contradict Mike Kane?s statement made on the Dan Abrams Report. Kane stated ?the police investigation never excluded anybody with the exception of Burke Ramsey from the focus of the case.? So was Burke thoroughly investigated or not?
Burke got a "get out of jail free" card early in the investigation from people like Thomas and Kane. The BPD early-on booted the investigation into Burke's possible involvement in the murder simply because he was a child -- which was a fatal assumption.

IMO the ridiculous fake ransom note alone, with its threats and silly foreign faction theme, should have told investigators to look for the involvement of a juvenile male.

JMO
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-11-2004, 07:55 PM
LovelyPigeon LovelyPigeon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Paducah, KY
Posts: 13,916
There's nothing fraudulent about the affadavit. Like many documents, it underwent some editing before it was finalized.

It was signed, witnessed, and is an official sworn affadavit.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-11-2004, 08:17 PM
Tricia's Avatar
Tricia Tricia is offline
WS Admin Mgr Co-Owner
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: I have survived all the slings and arrows and live in a house filled with Love.
Posts: 14,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovelyPigeon
There's nothing fraudulent about the affadavit. Like many documents, it underwent some editing before it was finalized.

It was signed, witnessed, and is an official sworn affadavit.
LP you are right. It is not fraudulent in any way. Plus it is not unusual for someone from the opposing side to write an affidavit and let the other side edit it.

HOWEVER.... Let me try and put this situation in the proper perspective.

Can you imagine O.J. Simpson's civil attorney's asking Marcia Clark to sign a depo to help O.J. out in a civil case? Of course not.

To me what is appalling is that Hunter willingly help. If I am not mistaken he could have pleaded prosecutorial immunity.

If Burke was 100 percent in the clear then Hunter would have said so. As it is Hunter left himself about a million square feet of wiggle room.
__________________
`````````````````

THERE ARE NOW TWO TRUE CRIME RADIO SHOWS! LISTEN EVERY THURSDAY TO THE iHEARTRADIO.COM CLICK HERE TO LISTEN LIVE EVERY THURSDAY 8 PM EASTERN

FOR PAST IHEART SHOWS CLICK HERE

FOR THE BLOGTALK.COM TRUE CRIME SHOWS CLICK HERE THEN SCROLL DOWN

Join Websleuths on Twitter

Follow websleuths on Twitter

And Face Book of course
 | 





************************************************** **************************************

Tricia Griffith
tgrif@xmission.com
6300 N. Sage Wood Drive
Suite H # 214
Park City UT
84098
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-11-2004, 08:44 PM
tipper tipper is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,796
I can imagine Marcia Clarke being willing to help on an affidavit that would clear Sydney and Justin Simpson if CourtTv had done a show listing them as possible suspects or accomplices.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-11-2004, 08:48 PM
Shylock Shylock is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipper
I can imagine Marcia Clarke being willing to help on an affidavit that would clear Sydney and Justin Simpson if CourtTv had done a show listing them as possible suspects or accomplices.
I wasn't aware that Sydney and Justin Simpson had the ability to commit the crime like Burke Ramsey did...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-11-2004, 09:21 PM
tipper tipper is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,796
They were there. I suppose you'd probably have to come up with a scenario wherein they killed their mother before Ron Goldman arrived.


But that isn't the point. Obviously I don't think they did it. My point was that that sort of situation (If CourtTV had offered them up as possible suspects) might bring about cooperation between a prosecutor and a civil attorney. In that case I could see the prosecutor saying "Sure, write up what you want to have said and I'll take a look at it." Or words to that effect.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-11-2004, 09:53 PM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovelyPigeon
There's nothing fraudulent about the affadavit. Like many documents, it underwent some editing before it was finalized.

It was signed, witnessed, and is an official sworn affadavit.

Alex Hunter, by signing the October 12, 2000 affidavit, IMO committed fraud. Fraud is intentionally misrepresenting something of importance.

The document was cleverly worded to make it appear that Burke Ramsey had been "cleared" when he wasn't, and the people and the press have relied on this misrepresented information. Boulder authorities refuse to use the word cleared when it comes to Burke, even though years earlier they publicly put out news releases saying John Andrew and Melinda had been CLEARED.

So Hunter and Wood did what all good con artists do. They confused and obfuscated by using the words "witness" and "suspect" instead of using the word "cleared". Being a "witness" and not being a "suspect" have nothing to do with being cleared or not being cleared, but Hunter committed fraud by twisting words to make it appear the words meant Burke had been cleared. That's fraud.

Burke Ramsey has not been cleared.

JMO
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-11-2004, 10:52 PM
Britt Britt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCrab
Being a "witness" and not being a "suspect" have nothing to do with being cleared or not being cleared, but Hunter committed fraud by twisting words to make it appear the words meant Burke had been cleared. That's fraud.
And more to the point, Hunter did this to enable Wood to pursue civil litigation on Burke's behalf: FRAUD. (Wonder if Hunter got a cut of the proceeds.)
__________________
The intruder is innocent! JMO
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:25 AM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!