Burke Ramsey Files 750 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against CBS

[kanzz]

I am not saying the Suitcase was never moved. Reread. In relation to your theory of one of three people killed someone, this doesn't give you and adults chance to say someone else's theory is wrong based on your opinion.

Either do what everyone else has done. Put your theory of what happened down, put a timeline to it, put a reason behind it, or stop trolling my answers to other people.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You clearly stated, "The suitcase was never moved." You can't walk that back now. It's right here for everyone to see.
As I said, "You are stating things as fact that are not facts." I stand by this.

The end. I will not assist you further.

However, if I choose, I will call out BS when I see it. And it is my prerogative to do so, no matter to whom it is posted.

It is not your prerogative to restrict, govern, regulate, or otherwise moderate my posts. Also - Baiting is strictly prohibited. See the rules:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information

You see, I am not easily intimidated.

Kanzz is NOT a troll.

It is against websleuths terms of service to tell people how to post.

Thank you. Thanks to my friends for covering my six!

 

[Annapurna]

Thubbb


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kanzz]

I totally agree.

The BPD were told to treat them like victims instead of suspects because they were 'influential people'. Are you kidding me. Really wouldn't surprise me if someone slipped some money under the table.

Funny story. Someone I know (who does not post here but is pretty well acquainted with the story) is totally convinced that:
During JR's missing 80-90 minutes, when Arndt went looking for him, those two made a deal.
JR approached LA and offered her a large sum of money to "play dumb"
JR had already discovered JBR's body, but not necessarily that he told LA so
JR told her he was convinced it was an inside job and he was going to get to the bottom of it.

LA's actions certainly were "dumb" -
Failing to contain the group in the study as she had been directed.
Sending JR and FW to search the house.
Moving the body after JR put it down at the top of the stairs.
Befriending PR in the months following.
Faxing a list of questions.
The list goes on and on.

It's a theory I can't discount off hand, as strange as it might seem on the surface. As most of you know, I have zero respect for LA, so I would put nothing past her. If this case was mucked up, LA did more than her fair share.

Again - not my theory, but that of someone I know. Just thought I'd toss it out here along with the "money under the table" comment.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Since the earlier Grand Jury wanted to indicte. But the DA didn't move forward. Then shouldn't CBS and others be cleared from a civil suit since a Grand jury came to the same conclusion even if the DA stopped everything and didn't move forward?

Because. What is the sense of having a Grand jury if the DA decides to not accept their indictement request?

So the Ramseys may act like they are suing because nothing leads to them.

But in actuality. The Grand jury did suggest that they were somewhat worthy of indictment.

Regardless if the DA felt sympathy.

So how can the Ramseys sue when they were actually indicted by a grand jury recommendation.

 

[Miz Adventure]

I'm not a fan of AH but in this case I feel that the DA's hands were tied. The wording of the true bills suggested that the Ramseys assisted a third party in the commission of a First Degree Murder.

As only four people were in the house that night, and one of them was dead, then the only person the couple could have been 'assisting' was their son - who at that time, was under the age of prosecution and could not be named.

Hunter was probably surprised by the findings of the GJ but he knew that the case could not go to trial because the jury (and the media) in a public trial would naturally need to know exactly WHO the couple had been assisting. That could not happen. BR could not be named under any circumstances.

Therefore the case against the R's came to a full stop. Swept under the carpet.

Even if the case against the Ramseys had gone to trial the chances are that they would have got off. The jury would probably have had sympathy with John, who had already lost a child, and Patsy was recovering from cancer. And if they knew Burke was responsible for the murder the jury would possibly had even more sympathy with the couple.

Burke can never be tried for the crime, so there will never be any real justice for JBR.



Imo.

 

[andreww]

I'm not a fan of AH but in this case I feel that the DA's hands were tied. The wording of the true bills suggested that the Ramseys assisted a third party in the commission of a First Degree Murder.

As only four people were in the house that night, and one of them was dead, then the only person the couple could have been 'assisting' was their son - who at that time, was under the age of prosecution and could not be named.

Hunter was probably surprised by the findings of the GJ but he knew that the case could not go to trial because the jury (and the media) in a public trial would naturally need to know exactly WHO the couple had been assisting. That could not happen. BR could not be named under any circumstances.

Therefore the case against the R's came to a full stop. Swept under the carpet.

Even if the case against the Ramseys had gone to trial the chances are that they would have got off. The jury would probably have had sympathy with John, who had already lost a child, and Patsy was recovering from cancer. And if they knew Burke was responsible for the murder the jury would possibly had even more sympathy with the couple.

Burke can never be tried for the crime, so there will never be any real justice for JBR.



Imo.

Thats in interesting idea, and Ive had the same thoughts over the past few months. Lets just pretend that Burke cracks on the stand to the GJ. How exactly does the DA go about dealing with that? If they charge the Ramsey's with the coverup, then it will be obvious who they covered up for and Burkes rights will have been violated. If they close the case and announce it as solved, the media would quickly clue in and Burke's rights would again be violated. It certainly would explain the odd behaviour of both Hunter and Lacy as well as the inactivity on this case since about that period of time. I have no doubt that Ramsey attorneys would have threatened a huge legal action if that information ever came to light. There would be no option but to let the case remain open and just put up with all the Ramsey BS until the case dies out of the public memory.

Its also interesting how the Ramsey's really have no interest in letting the case die. They have a air of fearlessness. Why? We all know that they were involved. Knowing that the DA's hands are tied would allow them do and say what they like, and given the amount of cash that they are probably making off this, why wouldn't they?

 

[akh]

I would like to see a logical, thorough, law-based analysis of the CO law. I cannot imagine it's actually as most people assume or claim which is since BR was 9 he (or any child) gets a free pass on illegal acts and (more importantly) the case can never be solved and closed. I don't think the law could be written that way to create such a giant loophole. Certainly not one that couldn't be challenged or find a way around to at least be able to close the case.
I understand he can't be convicted of murder but does that mean the case can't be solved? And if the parents sought to coverup his involvement they couldn't have been charged because of his status as a child? Their crime could've be tried separately. A murder still took place and if they took steps to obscure that then THAT itself is a crime.
I can imagine the law was written without anyone imagining this scenario but I can't imagine it was written so as to not be able to solve and close a case. Even if that means simply ending up with a sealed "the accused did it but can't be publicly named due to age" verdict of sorts.
Is it really written so as not only can BR not be convicted of murder due to his age at the time of commission but that no crime even occurred, because it was done by a child? That doesn't make sense.

 

[questfortrue]

I would like to see a logical, thorough, law-based analysis of the CO law. I cannot imagine it's actually as most people assume or claim which is since BR was 9 he (or any child) gets a free pass on illegal acts and (more importantly) the case can never be solved and closed. I don't think the law could be written that way to create such a giant loophole. Certainly not one that couldn't be challenged or find a way around to at least be able to close the case.
I understand he can't be convicted of murder but does that mean the case can't be solved? And if the parents sought to coverup his involvement they couldn't have been charged because of his status as a child? Their crime could've be tried separately. A murder still took place and if they took steps to obscure that then THAT itself is a crime.
I can imagine the law was written without anyone imagining this scenario but I can't imagine it was written so as to not be able to solve and close a case. Even if that means simply ending up with a sealed "the accused did it but can't be publicly named due to age" verdict of sorts.
Is it really written so as not only can BR not be convicted of murder due to his age at the time of commission but that no crime even occurred, because it was done by a child? That doesn't make sense.

Correct. The Colorado law does not state this.

Since some believe the case could not be tried because an underage child was involved, I wanted to add some details about Colorado law.

Yes, cases involving an underage child have been taken to a Colorado court. The court uses initials to shield a child’s full name. It’s correct though, if it were a public courtroom case, the possibility exists people would guess the son was involved, which brings me to mention the reasons for a courtroom to be closed to the public:
A motion to close the courtroom to the public may be granted if there is a compelling reason to justify the closure of a courtroom, for example:
-A trial for sex offenses involving minors under the age of 18,
-A trial of criminal proceeding involving a husband and wife
-A trial involving the crime of incest, child *advertiser censored* or criminal sexual conduct (http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/closing-the-courtroom-to-the-public.html )

Those who are 100% convinced that a child was responsible for it all, and interpret the True Bills as confirming their conclusion, may be totally correct. I’ve no inside line as to what the GJ believed.

IMO, AH decided to ‘tank’ the challenging case from the beginning. Challenging not because of the ‘infant’, but because the reveal of the parents' roles was tough to establish. He wanted a confession so that he could plea bargain. How can one tell with certainty that BR did the head blow? No smoking gun forensically speaking. It was a circumstantial case. This is why Kolar believed obtaining medical records and interviewing BR again within the framework of a GJ was so important. (I don’t believe BR ‘cracked’ under questioning by the GJ. It’s obvious from the interview with the psychologist, he knew not to say certain things. He didn’t even admit to the GJ that the voice on the 911 call was his, just that it ‘sounded’ like his voice. Later he claimed he wasn’t there.)

But one final misconception I’ve seen repeated is what would have happened if BDI all and if the parents had been truthful with the authorities. Colorado has hospitals for the criminally insane, but BR did not fit within that category. They do not have facilities for treatment of one so young, as in say an institution. The Colorado institutions/facilities accommodate juveniles, age 12 and up to 18. A court most likely would have mandated specific mental health treatment for the whole family for a period of time.

It’s generally conceded that a court case is now impossible. Posters from the past and some who knew the Rs, believed the parents not only could have been tried, but should have been tried for child abuse and obstruction of justice. Some think AH, in one of his secret agreements, agreed to something such as treatment for BR. I guess it’s a possibility. Hmmm . . .$2+mm. . .60,000 BPD reports . .saving others from the anguish of their reputations trashed? If AH did take such an action seems as though he placed himself in the role of judge and jury and brushed it under the rug. For JB's sake? Nah, this speaks of cowardice and corruption imho.

As Patsy would have said, oh, “La te da.”

Here one can apply FW’s words: What happens is that evil comes in. If you don't have truth, all you have are lies, then what comes in is evil. And evil just does its thing.

 

[Miz Adventure]

Yes, cases involving an underage child have been taken to a Colorado court.

Could you please provide a source for this because I have already looked online and found no court cases involving underage children being prosecuted for crimes in the Colorado courts.

The court uses initials to shield a child’s full name. It’s correct though, if it were a public courtroom case, the possibility exists people would guess the son was involved, which brings me to mention the reasons for a courtroom to be closed to the public:
A motion to close the courtroom to the public may be granted if there is a compelling reason to justify the closure of a courtroom, for example:
-A trial for sex offenses involving minors under the age of 18,
-A trial of criminal proceeding involving a husband and wife
-A trial involving the crime of incest, child *advertiser censored* or criminal sexual conduct (http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/closing-the-courtroom-to-the-public.html )

A closed courtroom? All very good in theory - but this was the JonBenet Ramsey case. It was the case the world was waiting for (even here in the UK we knew all about it). A trial could never be kept quiet. The truth will out, as they say. A trial of this magnitude, and all it revealed about this family, would rock the world.

He wanted a confession so that he could plea bargain. How can one tell with certainty that BR did the head blow? No smoking gun forensically speaking. It was a circumstantial case.

I don't believe AH wanted, or ever expected, a confession. I believe he already knew what happened that night and so did the R's lawyers.

In a court case the R's would have to name the person they assisted and exactly how they 'assisted' in the murder. Once they did this the murder would no longer be 'circumstantial'.

If the Ramseys had confessed that would have been MEGA news, hitting most people like a ton of bricks. People would want to know the truth, and all the details, the minutae of how this murder could have happened to this 6 year old American beauty queen.

The world's media would never stop until they had enough to feed the public's frenzied desire for every sordid detail.

This was the dilemma that I believe AH had. Burke could not be named, so the case could never go to trial, and hence, because of Burke's tender years - a media circus was avoided.

AH may even have given a sigh of relief when he read the true bills. Prosecuting the Ramseys was - in my view - the last thing he would have wanted to do.

 

[andreww]

I think that there is a very good chance that the DA and Ramsey Lawyers knew that Burke was involved very early on. What were they to do about it? What could they do that wouldn't violate the rights of a 9 year old boy? There is only one thing they could do, steer the case towards a fictional intruder, knowing the case would never be solved. This is exactly what Alex Hunter did when he hired Lou Smit. Smit was a pawn. Mary Lacy took it one step farther, using sketchy DNA evidence to exonerate the Ramsey's. Her arrest of JMK was was simply a publicity stunt. It not only let the public know about what kind of freaks were out there, but it also gave her the opportunity to reaffirm her strong belief in the DNA. Karr confessed but was released du to the DNA. So the DNA was the gold standard, and they knew nobody would ever be matched to it.

 

[buggiegirl]

I will never believe the police knew Burke was involved and proceeded to waste time and money pretending to keep investigating. Usually those "can't name the minor" things just mean they can't name the minor. They can't obstruct justice left and right to prevent people from guessing the minor's identity. For example, they can not name minors, but they will name the parents. Horrible example here, but when the Duggar kid who molested his siblings was outed, the police paperwork redacted his name, his victims' names, but put his parents names and their home address on everything. So obviously everyone knows who the redacted names were, but technically the names were withheld to protect the minors involved.

I've always thought that if a case against the parents were to proceed, they'd just redact Burke's name. Everyone would know it was him, but technically there'd be no official finding or confirmation of that.

 

[andreww]

I will never believe the police knew Burke was involved and proceeded to waste time and money pretending to keep investigating. Usually those "can't name the minor" things just mean they can't name the minor. They can't obstruct justice left and right to prevent people from guessing the minor's identity. For example, they can not name minors, but they will name the parents. Horrible example here, but when the Duggar kid who molested his siblings was outed, the police paperwork redacted his name, his victims' names, but put his parents names and their home address on everything. So obviously everyone knows who the redacted names were, but technically the names were withheld to protect the minors involved.

I've always thought that if a case against the parents were to proceed, they'd just redact Burke's name. Everyone would know it was him, but technically there'd be no official finding or confirmation of that.

What you are failing to state is that at a certain point the DA's office took the case away from BPD. If the DA's office became aware of what happened, specifically Alex Hunter who was tight with Ramsey attorneys, he wouldn't have told this to BPD due to the ongoing issue of leaks to the media. What is extremely evident is the DA's persistence in pursuing the IDI theory despite the fact that every investigator on the case was telling them that the killer was a family member. The DA stifled BPDs efforts in investigating the case properly. Why? This case was easily solvable if normal police tactics were used, but Hunter refused them at every step. Why? True bills? What true bills?

And redacting Burkes name would do nothing. John and Patsy would be charged with aiding the killer, who do you think they would be aiding? Only one other person in the house.

 

[Tadpole12]

https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/hour-2-010817

Podcast, The World According To Zig, LW
01/08/17

"Here's ITunes version of this week's "World According to Zig" podcast, which includes great interview with "
@LLinWoodhttps://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/free-speech-broadcasting/id1084615174?mt=2 …

 

[Miz Adventure]

I will never believe the police knew Burke was involved and proceeded to waste time and money pretending to keep investigating..

I don't think the police knew BR was definitely involved, not for a while anyway. ST, the lead detective on the case, didn't seem to think he was involved (but I suspect he may think so now) At the time everyone was being told that BR was cleared of the crime so nobody was really looking in his direction.

I expect the BPD felt duty bound to investigate every possibility, including all the names they were given (by the Ramseys) as possible intruders.

I'm certain they knew the parents were involved, but hadn't quite worked out who did what or why.

 

[Tadpole12]

https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/hour-2-010817

LW's take:
no evidence,
CBS special mini series misrepresents itself as a documentary,
Detective interviewed BR that day, without the Ramsey parents' knowledge, and based on that interview/interrogation concluded that B did not have any idea whatsoever what had happened to his sister,
Parents did not shelter BR from interviews

Why did CBS do this?

Story was initially assigned for 48 hours,
inhouse production company,
pulled from 48 hours
around March of last year and it was
given to a company called Critical Content, ...

LW: "and they moved it over to a third party production company,
I believe,
because they knew that if they did it in house
they couldn't publish this kind of an accusation under their own standards so they went to a third party where the standard of CBS
would not apply and they were able to make this sensational, the only member of the media that's made that accusation, ah, in the last 18 years"

 

[Tadpole12]

21:17 LW: ...the whole show was scripted off of
esentially, the book FF
I even have a screen shot, where I,
it's on the table during one of their meetings
CBS doesn't mention the book
and even worse
the essential argument, the speculation in the book
FF was essentially published in 1998
by the tabloid Globe
claiming the same findings about hearing B
essentially relying on the same type of speculative
evidence to conclude that he had accidentally killed his sister
and that's it I sued Globe successfully
and what's really interesting is
Globe was represented by a top notch media defense lawyer
Tom Kelly out in Denver
and you turn around and you look
at Kolar's self published book and guess who
he's praising for all of his assistance
Tom Kelly the lawyer.
I mean these people had to know
that not only was this a false accusation
but they ought, they knew
that they were in effect presenting this
fictional story in a way to the public
that made it appear to be the real deal.

 

[Tadpole12]

https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/hour-2-010817

@44:25
LW mentions news article, 'JonBenet Inc.':

http://www.acandyrose.com/02002000NEWS-jonbenet-inc.htm

Amounts of money that various media entities had made on JBR case:

LW: I supect now, 20 years later, that the amount of money that has been made by the media off of the tradgedy of this family is probably approaching a trillion dollars.
It could be more.

 

[questfortrue]

Could you please provide a source for this because I have already looked online and found no court cases involving underage children being prosecuted for crimes in the Colorado courts.

A closed courtroom? All very good in theory - but this was the JonBenet Ramsey case. It was the case the world was waiting for (even here in the UK we knew all about it). A trial could never be kept quiet. The truth will out, as they say. A trial of this magnitude, and all it revealed about this family, would rock the world.

I don't believe AH wanted, or ever expected, a confession. I believe he already knew what happened that night and so did the R's lawyers.

~RSBM~

My sources on initials are from two attorneys. In an indictment of adults, when a minor or infant has involvement, attorneys will use initials to protect the minor or infant’s identity. (There once was a Colorado case in which a mother used the infancy defense after she had shown her son how to steal a toy. Subsequent to being charged she tried to make the case no crime had been committed because her son could not form 'criminal intent.' Of course, it didn't fly.)
_________

I was responding hypothetically to another poster. I agree a closed court room would likely be difficult to achieve, though not impossible so long as the defense did not object. Also, sometimes a court room is not closed for an entire trial, but only during certain portions. Information leaked steadily from the DA's office regarding this case, so it can't be said a closed court room would even have been needed.
_________

Since I’m not sure how you understand circumstantial (or indirect) evidence and direct evidence, and at the risk of sounding didactic, there are only two basic kinds of evidence which may be admitted in court – direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. (Examples of direct evidence are physical, demonstrative, documentary and testimonial.)

Direct evidence does not require any reasoning or inference to arrive at the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. In other words, it’s evidence which stands alone to prove a fact and doesn’t require jurors to draw inferences via deductive reasoning. That is key to understanding what constitutes direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence, also called indirect evidence, requires that an inference be made between the evidence and the conclusion to be drawn from it. Circumstantial evidence is frequently discussed as representing an inferior form of evidence and carrying less weight than direct evidence. However, in many cases it can be even more powerful than direct evidence.

Although both direct and circumstantial evidence must be evaluated in terms of whether the source of evidence is reliable, U.S. law shows no distinction in weight or importance between both forms of evidence.

Lastly, circumstantial evidence does not become direct evidence when a case goes to court. It requires a prosecuting team who are able to put a case together that provides enough evidence (both direct and circumstantial) to allow the jury reason to vote for the prosecution’s case.
_________

Again I agree with you. Hunter did not want to go to court. But we've a difference of opinion on his background and motivations. Hunter favored pre-indictment plea bargaining, before anyone has been charged. This has been noted in at least a couple of books, but in detail in ST’s book. In his own words in 2006 re the R case, Hunter once stated, "I think I was coming from a point where I hoped I might be able to shake something out of the bush,” (a confession) ”and I might suggest to the killer that I knew something that they didn't know. I think my heart was in the right place, but I think I was probably operating a little bit from too low in my gut." He underestimated the Rs.

 

[andreww]

I don't think the police knew BR was definitely involved, not for a while anyway. ST, the lead detective on the case, didn't seem to think he was involved (but I suspect he may think so now) At the time everyone was being told that BR was cleared of the crime so nobody was really looking in his direction.

I expect the BPD felt duty bound to investigate every possibility, including all the names they were given (by the Ramseys) as possible intruders.

I'm certain they knew the parents were involved, but hadn't quite worked out who did what or why.

We've seen Burke's interviews, not exactly like they were asking hard questions. " do you know what happened to your sister?" "No".

That proves it then, the kid knows nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Miz Adventure]

My sources on initials are from two attorneys. In an indictment of adults, when a minor or infant has involvement, attorneys will use initials to protect the minor or infant’s identity. (There once was a Colorado case in which a mother used the infancy defense after she had shown her son how to steal a toy. Subsequent to being charged she tried to make the case no crime had been committed because her son could not form 'criminal intent.' Of course, it didn't fly.)
_________

I was responding hypothetically to another poster. I agree a closed court room would likely be difficult to achieve, though not impossible so long as the defense did not object. Also, sometimes a court room is not closed for an entire trial, but only during certain portions. Information leaked steadily from the DA's office regarding this case, so it can't be said a closed court room would even have been needed.
_________

Since I’m not sure how you understand circumstantial (or indirect) evidence and direct evidence, and at the risk of sounding didactic, there are only two basic kinds of evidence which may be admitted in court – direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. (Examples of direct evidence are physical, demonstrative, documentary and testimonial.)

Direct evidence does not require any reasoning or inference to arrive at the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. In other words, it’s evidence which stands alone to prove a fact and doesn’t require jurors to draw inferences via deductive reasoning. That is key to understanding what constitutes direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence, also called indirect evidence, requires that an inference be made between the evidence and the conclusion to be drawn from it. Circumstantial evidence is frequently discussed as representing an inferior form of evidence and carrying less weight than direct evidence. However, in many cases it can be even more powerful than direct evidence.

Although both direct and circumstantial evidence must be evaluated in terms of whether the source of evidence is reliable, U.S. law shows no distinction in weight or importance between both forms of evidence.

Lastly, circumstantial evidence does not become direct evidence when a case goes to court. It requires a prosecuting team who are able to put a case together that provides enough evidence (both direct and circumstantial) to allow the jury reason to vote for the prosecution’s case.
_________

Again I agree with you. Hunter did not want to go to court. But we've a difference of opinion on his background and motivations. Hunter favored pre-indictment plea bargaining, before anyone has been charged. This has been noted in at least a couple of books, but in detail in ST’s book. In his own words in 2006 re the R case, Hunter once stated, "I think I was coming from a point where I hoped I might be able to shake something out of the bush,” (a confession) ”and I might suggest to the killer that I knew something that they didn't know. I think my heart was in the right place, but I think I was probably operating a little bit from too low in my gut." He underestimated the Rs.

I know what circumstantial evidence is. My hobby is true crime and has been for over 30 years.

I also know you cannot have a plea bargain without the defendant admitting to a crime. Thereby lies the problem.

I don't honestly think that using initials instead of the actual name of the R's son would have fooled anyone.

This is assuming BR is guilty of course.

And in any case what exactly would have been the point in going to trial, or even plea bargaining anyway? The Ramseys did not murder anyone or even hurt their daughter that night. They were simply trying to save their son.

It wasn't as if they were hardened criminals who deserved to be severely punished, as some people (on other forums) seem to think.