K777angel
Member
I find an interesting connection that cannot be ignored in this case regarding the following:
Schiller writes of the discussion of "clearing" Fleet White in PMPT:
"On April 15, the National Enquirer wrote that White "told investigators...(that John Ramsey) tried to keep White from opening the door to the small basement room where JonBenet's body was found." The tabloid added that "White and Priscilla have made some awful allegations to Bouler police about John and Patsy and the Ramseys will never speak to them again." It was after reading this that Fleet White stormed into Koby's and then Hunter's office and demanded to be publicly cleared as a suspect. Hunter said that he had never seen such anger." "We can clear the guy," Pete Hofstrom suggested to Hunter. "And then later on, if we decide he's not clear, we'll UNLCEAR him." Hunter talked to Koby about White. He told the Chief that unless they did something to appease White, they might lose an important witness. Koby reluctantly agreed. He would talk to Eller, and hoped the commander would agree to clear the Whites.
When Hunter saw a draft of the Boulder PD's intended public statement, however, he objected to the wording. The Whites, he felt, should not be "cleared" of any suspicion because Fleet White's demeanor after JonBenet's murder was still open to interpretation. It might be better to use the words "are not suspects" rather than "cleared." White would later learn about Hunter's involvement in the wording of the press release and hold it against him.
The next afternoon, April 16, the police department included the following statement from Cheif Koby in the City of Boulder's Ramsey Update No. 40.
"Mr. and Mrs. Fleet White, Jr., are not suspects in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. They are considered key witnesses. The Boulder Police Department appreciates the full cooperation they have received form the Whites since the beginning of their investigation. I feel this response is necessary due to the inaccurate portrayal of Mr. and Mrs. White in certain media publications."
Now - let's go to the United States District Court order in the Burke/NY Post lawsuit on the motion to quash subpoenas:
"Defendant (NY Post) claims the evidence sought is crucial to its defense to the defamation claim. It states the documents sought are directly related to key issues in that action, including Burke's possible involvement in the murder and/or his parents' possible involvement in a cover-up, reported plea bargain negotiations with Burke's representatives, and even whether someone in the District Attorney's office provided the information about Burke to the Star magazine.
...The fact that respondent (Hunter) released similar or identical information to the press as was contained in the affidavit does not detract from the relevancy of such evidence. While the press release may show consistency in respondents "public position with regard to Burke, neither it nor the affadavit can substitute for documentary evidence regarding the investigation.
Defendant also asserts that information sought is relevant in light of the prior drafts of the affadavit provided by respondent. A comparison of the affidavit and draft (Exhibits B and D to response) reflects that Hunter decided to delete certain statements, including a statement that investigators were satisfied that Burke was not a suspect and that Burke was never viewed as a suspect."
It is curious that one of Hunter's objections was that to provide the documents to the Post that it sought would cause an undue "burden" on his office because it would encompass "tens of thousands" of documents.
Now, how can it be true that Burke was never a suspect in the murder case and yet there is such an overwhelming amount of documents that cover Burke in the case that it would constitute an "undue burden" to have to gather them all to hand over to the Post lawyers??
I also found this section of the judge's order interesting: "Respondent (Hunter) raises the potential disqualification of its office in any criminal case resulting from the ongoing Ramsey investigation if it is forced to open its files to discovery. It is not apparent how the disclosure would cause disqualification."
Yes - so just HOW would disclosure of information regarding Burke Ramsey cause "disqualification" of the DA's office in any criminal case??
So much to ponder here....
~Angel~
Schiller writes of the discussion of "clearing" Fleet White in PMPT:
"On April 15, the National Enquirer wrote that White "told investigators...(that John Ramsey) tried to keep White from opening the door to the small basement room where JonBenet's body was found." The tabloid added that "White and Priscilla have made some awful allegations to Bouler police about John and Patsy and the Ramseys will never speak to them again." It was after reading this that Fleet White stormed into Koby's and then Hunter's office and demanded to be publicly cleared as a suspect. Hunter said that he had never seen such anger." "We can clear the guy," Pete Hofstrom suggested to Hunter. "And then later on, if we decide he's not clear, we'll UNLCEAR him." Hunter talked to Koby about White. He told the Chief that unless they did something to appease White, they might lose an important witness. Koby reluctantly agreed. He would talk to Eller, and hoped the commander would agree to clear the Whites.
When Hunter saw a draft of the Boulder PD's intended public statement, however, he objected to the wording. The Whites, he felt, should not be "cleared" of any suspicion because Fleet White's demeanor after JonBenet's murder was still open to interpretation. It might be better to use the words "are not suspects" rather than "cleared." White would later learn about Hunter's involvement in the wording of the press release and hold it against him.
The next afternoon, April 16, the police department included the following statement from Cheif Koby in the City of Boulder's Ramsey Update No. 40.
"Mr. and Mrs. Fleet White, Jr., are not suspects in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. They are considered key witnesses. The Boulder Police Department appreciates the full cooperation they have received form the Whites since the beginning of their investigation. I feel this response is necessary due to the inaccurate portrayal of Mr. and Mrs. White in certain media publications."
Now - let's go to the United States District Court order in the Burke/NY Post lawsuit on the motion to quash subpoenas:
"Defendant (NY Post) claims the evidence sought is crucial to its defense to the defamation claim. It states the documents sought are directly related to key issues in that action, including Burke's possible involvement in the murder and/or his parents' possible involvement in a cover-up, reported plea bargain negotiations with Burke's representatives, and even whether someone in the District Attorney's office provided the information about Burke to the Star magazine.
...The fact that respondent (Hunter) released similar or identical information to the press as was contained in the affidavit does not detract from the relevancy of such evidence. While the press release may show consistency in respondents "public position with regard to Burke, neither it nor the affadavit can substitute for documentary evidence regarding the investigation.
Defendant also asserts that information sought is relevant in light of the prior drafts of the affadavit provided by respondent. A comparison of the affidavit and draft (Exhibits B and D to response) reflects that Hunter decided to delete certain statements, including a statement that investigators were satisfied that Burke was not a suspect and that Burke was never viewed as a suspect."
It is curious that one of Hunter's objections was that to provide the documents to the Post that it sought would cause an undue "burden" on his office because it would encompass "tens of thousands" of documents.
Now, how can it be true that Burke was never a suspect in the murder case and yet there is such an overwhelming amount of documents that cover Burke in the case that it would constitute an "undue burden" to have to gather them all to hand over to the Post lawyers??
I also found this section of the judge's order interesting: "Respondent (Hunter) raises the potential disqualification of its office in any criminal case resulting from the ongoing Ramsey investigation if it is forced to open its files to discovery. It is not apparent how the disclosure would cause disqualification."
Yes - so just HOW would disclosure of information regarding Burke Ramsey cause "disqualification" of the DA's office in any criminal case??
So much to ponder here....
~Angel~