Was Burke Involved # 5

[Herlock5]

Herlock5,
Sure, here is a sample of the unsealed GJ Counts leveled at the parents, and remember the GJ saw and heard evidence we do not know exists!
GJ asked about charges against parents but not the ostensible perpetrator? What a farce.



.

 

[Herlock5]

Prosecutors did not present evidence implicating burke to GJ?

 

[Venom]

Prosecutors did not present evidence implicating burke to GJ?

I don't think anyone would know if they did or not.

 

[Me66]

Burke was underage so even if they were sure he did it, they couldn’t pursue it.

 

[UKGuy]

The underwear was from Bloomingdales, not FAO Schwartz.

icedtea4me,
I think we all know that, Patsy states that she purchased the underwear from Bloomingdale's in her interview.

What may have been a touch too elliptic for you was that we do not know if the underwear was actually wrapped at Bloomingdale's or simply placed in a shopping bag, the underwear package was small and portable?

The relevance of all this lies in considering if all the Partially Opened Gifts were FAO Schwartz gift wrapped or a mixture of different wrappings?

Patsy does state in one of her interviews that she chose FAO Schwartz because they did free gift wrapping and delivery.

Could this have included the underwear purchased at Bloomingdale's?

.

 

[UKGuy]

Prosecutors did not present evidence implicating burke to GJ?

Herlock5,
We do not know what they presented, but enough was put on the table to charge the parents with committing child abuse and assisting a third party, i.e. the person, so named in the True Bills.


Bear in mind Burke Ramsey could never be named in connection with his sisters assault and death as he was legally a child beneath the age of criminal responsibility and according to Colorado Statute he cannot be identified.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Burke was underage so even if they were sure he did it, they couldn’t pursue it.

Me66,
Sure, and under Colorado Statute they were compelled to not identify him!

.

 

[icedtea4me]

<snip>
Patsy does state in one of her interviews that she chose FAO Schwartz because they did free gift wrapping and delivery.

Could this have included the underwear purchased at Bloomingdale's?

Items purchased at FAO Schwartz (proof of purchase required) would be gift wrapped by FAO Schwartz employees. I'm certain that it would not include items purchased elsewhere.

 

[Herlock5]

Me66,
Sure, and under Colorado Statute they were compelled to not identify him!

.

So he could not be charged for murder?

 

[David Rogers]

Herlock5,
We do not know what they presented, but enough was put on the table to charge the parents with committing child abuse and assisting a third party, i.e. the person, so named in the True Bills.


Bear in mind Burke Ramsey could never be named in connection with his sisters assault and death as he was legally a child beneath the age of criminal responsibility and according to Colorado Statute he cannot be identified.

.

With all the people that were at the hearings from Jurors to bailiffs, court reporters and law staff this is tighter than Fort Knox. What hasn’t something leaked. Protecting a minor? Convict John? Surly if it was Patsy that would have leaked by now.

 

[UKGuy]

So he could not be charged for murder?

Herlock5,
This one depends on the legal jurisdiction, some jurisdictions will charge the minor with whatever crime is alleged, but not prosecute, others will not, the former see it as a formal step in the legal process.

Given Hunter's eye to detail, e.g. not filing the True Bills, then maybe he was charged, but it will be a only on paper affair?

.

 

[UKGuy]

With all the people that were at the hearings from Jurors to bailiffs, court reporters and law staff this is tighter than Fort Knox. What hasn’t something leaked. Protecting a minor? Convict John? Surly if it was Patsy that would have leaked by now.

David Rogers,
Sure, I agree this is why the case is more likely to be BDI?

The case is unlikely to be PDI. The staging more or less incriminates Patsy as she leaves personal forensic evidence at a crime-scene that is sealed off from the rest of the house. Which is the opposite of the intended objective.

IMO the case is either JDI or BDI?

The curious thing is John appears not to be involved due to a lack of evidence and Burke given his age seems to lack the maturity both sexually and mentally to pull off such a crime?

Yet we have Hunter, et al all prevaricating and avoiding any connection with the legal due process, why would they do that, as you say if it was PDI or JDI then someone by now would have leaked, as they would know the True Bills would back them up?

This would apply even if John and Patsy were innocent, since those on the Grand Jury would all hold different opinions?

The only reason not to leak is to know a minor is involved and that there might be extenuating circumstances?

One thing is for sure, once John passes on we will hear more. Since if they refuse to release his sealed documents, evidence trail, etc, then will know who allegedly did it!

.

 

[UKGuy]

Items purchased at FAO Schwartz (proof of purchase required) would be gift wrapped by FAO Schwartz employees. I'm certain that it would not include items purchased elsewhere.

icedtea4me,
I tend to agree with you. Does anyone know what the wrapping on the Partially Opened Gifts looked like?

Patsy is saying she never got round to wrapping the size-12's, but this is just another way of saying someone else could have unwrapped them and used them to redress JonBenet?

Just like the details regarding the underwear taken from JonBenet's underwear drawer, BPD have never said much about the Partially Opened Gifts or from memory released any crime-scene photos, I wonder why?

.

 

[JerseyGirl]

This thread is full and will be closed. Please continue here:

Was Burke Involved? #6